"Magus" isn't his name... it's a term for a sorcerer. They didn't know him, rather, they were calling him what he is. And they knew that when they saw the Grimourum.
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:28 pm EDT from 75.156.190.146

How do the weird sisters know the Magus when they first go to Avalon?Selene says,"you know better than that Magus".Oh yeah, and has the Magus ever been to Avalon before,If he"Knows Better"?
Othello
Gatgfan
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:43:13 pm EDT from 24.251.3.33

Brook> Totally agree!
Ricky
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:30:10 pm EDT from 151.205.112.87

I still think AMERICAN DAD outwighs Family Guy on many levels. The humor is even more politically incorrect, and, this time, grounded in the storyline.

But Family Guy still enjoys a special spot in my heart. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 5:39:09 pm EDT from 84.191.253.161

As irrelevant as Family Guy's jokes might be, I still find them absolutely hilarious.
Rebel
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 4:33:52 pm EDT from 75.65.27.129

@ KingCobra: You did it wrong, that should have been...

KingCobra: That was worse than... Thousands of years ago, when I...

Carl: Yah thousands of years ago I kicked your ass... and I'm going to do it again right now!

;)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 12:06:10 pm EDT from 84.191.253.161

Brook> Wow, Eric Cartman getting mad about that is even worse then the time I...

*cue the irrelevant flashback/joke*
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:48:02 am EDT from 99.187.184.144

Scorpio> Making fun of a musical score is not plot related either.
Supermorff
posted @ Sun, Apr 5, 2009 2:43:56 am EDT from 86.131.14.67

The only episode of family guy i've seen was the one where they made fun of star wars and even then the only plot relevant joke i could find was when they made fun of John Williams musical score. It was still funny as hell though.
Scorpio
Where are all the macbeth and hunter avatars!?!
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 11:23:26 pm EDT from 69.108.113.71

Dude, but... but... the show is AWESOME!!

I mean, OK they pulled ******** from the show, fine, but apart from that...
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 1:54:27 pm EDT from 84.191.204.168

Don't you ever, ever compare me to Family Guy, you hear me, Brook? Compare me to Family Guy again and so help me, I will kill you where you stand!

Do you have any idea what it's like? Everywhere I go: 'Hey Cartman you must like Family Guy, right?' 'Hey, your sense of humor reminds me of Family Guy Cartman!'

I am NOTHING like Family Guy! When I make jokes they are inherent to a story! Deep situational and emotional jokes based on what is relevant and has a point, not just one random interchangable joke after another!
Eric Cartman
Seriously, Brook is a German with a superiority complex. How original? Inconceivable!
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 1:52:48 pm EDT from 74.63.221.234

Patrick: "But "Daria" was a spin-off from one of the WORST shows ever, so it's always dragged down by that association."

Seriously, NO!!

Beavis and Butthead is GENIUS!!

The Episode where they go to the bank, cause they want Nachos, but they don't have money... and in the bank, the accountant tries to commit suicide, and B&B try to convince him to give them money before he dies??

CLASSIC!!

Without this show, thre wouldn't be quality comedy like SOUTHPARK and FAMILY GUY. Like, really.

For all non-believer, WATCH THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTcYrwWKcso
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:31:12 am EDT from 84.191.204.168

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

Says here it's a spin-off of Beavis and Butthead. I never would have known if Patrick hadn't mentioned it, which compelled me to look it up. I never watched Beavis and Butthead, so I never saw Daria appear on it.
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:43:34 am EDT from 75.65.27.129

Patrick> "But "Daria" was a spin-off from one of the WORST shows ever"

Forgive me for intruding on the topic, but I'm now curious. What show would that be?
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:53:31 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

But "Daria" was a spin-off from one of the WORST shows ever, so it's always dragged down by that association.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:41:59 am EDT from 173.88.144.38

@ Jack: Oh, I missed something there... sounds like quite a change, eh?

And Daria was TOTALLY robbed.
One of the best shows.
Ever.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:31:38 am EDT from 84.191.232.49

Newsarama article> I too read it, and I agree with what a lot of you guys are saying. Disney could have done things different, we fans couldv'e done things different, they has all great cartoons on the list, etc. I also hold that we need to take a slight "wait and see" approach regarding the future of Disney. Remember, the previous dvds were rerleased at the same time as the whole internet bashing of Eisner. Flash forward a few years and now we have a dedicated nerd in a position of extreme power and influence, i.e.-John Lasseter. Mr "My best friend is Miyazaki, I love 2d". He seems like the kind of guy who will listen to a good idea, and get some cogs moving. And I don't mean the pleas and ramblings of the internet, but an honest appeal based on the merits of the idea. Again, this is my opinion.

Oh, and that Newsarama list forgot a great cartoon; Daria. Just saying.
Jack-Pumpkinhead - [jtjgundam at hotmail dot com]
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
posted @ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 1:02:18 am EDT from 204.8.188.81

Wingless> Ah, OK. My mistake. I guess since you kept bringing it up, I just assumed.

OK Gore, what's the scoop?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 8:03:18 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Demonskrye - Heh, actually, I've never seen "Mysterious Cities Of Gold" myself. I've known Gorebash was a fan-and have remembered the name as a result of that. The series never aired in Canada-except in French(of which I only saw one episode.)
So, I've heard nothing about a new series or Movie myself-but considering the original series DVD release in North America - maybe that's the reason behind it. Sorry I'm not of more help.

Trolling for Gorebash-might you know more?
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 6:22:42 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

Wingless> Since I know you're a fan, do you know anything about this supposed movie and new series of "The Mysterious Cities of Gold" the Wikipedia article refers to?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 5:12:53 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

@ Wingless: Thanks. You know that famous Andy Kaufman skit with it? Brilliant.

I remember seeing this back-to-back on a programm with DANGER MOUSE, which I also loved...

OH, and on a broader scale, the Wolverine film leaked to the net last weekend. I did not hear the news until a few minutes ago. Lucky me, I hate downloadable films, and thus it doesn't interrest me. Apparently, the FBI is in now and some people claimed they've received emails, threatening them with legal action after the download.
Not! Funny!

The film seems to get rather mixed reviews though. I've heard/read nothing decent that could be called a review, but IMDB is full with "UGH, THIS SUX SO MUCH!!" threads. Oh well, another of my favourite comicbook heroes down the bad-film-drain...

I'll watch it in theaters the day it comes out, but I guess I might look for somebody to pay my ticket for me, cause if it is any bad, I'll be devastated I paid for it.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 4:52:33 pm EDT from 84.191.240.192

Brook: Mighty Mouse was part part of the Mighty Heroes Show-Directed by Ralph Bakshi(Who also revived Mighty Mouse in the late 70s before it was yanked off the air for supposed drug references. Here's the original Mighty Mouse/Mighty Heroes theme. It's not a good print, but I think we're lucky it exists at all in it's original form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqawR5ofhE
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 4:18:27 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

Isn't Mighty Mouse on that list too?

Loved that show as a kid. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 4:05:01 pm EDT from 84.191.240.192

*Reads the Newsarama article* Nice that Gargoyles gets some much needed publicity. Also like that he mentioned Mighty Heroes & Eek The Cat. Both very bizarre programs. One has to see an episode of Mighty Heroes to believe it(It is from the 60s BTW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77nZDvPk0I
Wingless
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 3:47:45 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

@ Demonskrye: I see the problem with the trades int he fact that the people who will NOT know of them also won't know of the first trade and Bad Guys.

Plus the trades are even harder to get outside the US than the DVDs. :(
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 2:11:04 pm EDT from 84.191.240.192

@ Landon: I pointed out the same facts some months ago, and the reply was, that Disney has to rent free space to keep all the thousands of DVDs also.

But as somebody who has worked in smaller AND bigger production companys, I have made the experience that, even if the sales are lower, that is not a big deal. DVDs of older films who do not sell are weighing the thing out one way or another, and it's not as if Disney would buy a warehouse just to store all of the GARGOYLES Dvds in there.

My guess is they they simply wanted to spend the minimum amount of money in their DVD market. They put out the first season without promotion, and it sells well enough to bring on the next one without promotion as well.

In our case, S2 just didn't hit that mark. :(

Personally, I'm disturbed by this, because if this is going to be a trend in how to sell DVDs, smaller companies will once again have to rely on word to mouth and "the fanbase" (of an actor/a show) to do the promotion.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 2:09:17 pm EDT from 84.191.240.192

A bit of clarification: Greg Weisman was pretty clear from the beginning that both of the DVDs needed fans to spread the word in order to succeed. I just wish he'd been able to put the kibosh on the TV ad rumor early on, because I think it may have caused some people to feel a little more complacent, like Disney had it covered this time around. But that aside, the whole thing is done and there's only so much to be gained from rehashing it. There were mistakes made on various fronts. The question now is, do we want to spend our time going over those again and again and lamenting how Disney dropped the ball, or think about what we could do to promote the trades when they come out and increase the chances that "Gargoyles" will have a future?
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 2:03:09 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Demonskrye - I was only talking about hypothetical ads. I had no idea that Disney 'struck a deal' with the fandom that we'd do the advertising. Only Disney could fail to grasp the concept so profoundly. Movie studios have been surviving on DVD profits for years and the disparity between DVD income and ticket sales for most movies is staggering. DVDs made $24.5 billion in 2006 compared to $9.4 billion in box office sales. My only point with the comparison is that it's a ripe market. Library and archive DVD releases like the Disney Afternoon are even better since the only production cost is the DVD printing, which is dirt cheap. Heck, online distribution is free and Disney still hasn't exploited their iTunes partnership. It reminds me of a Douglas Adams Hitchhiker quote: "There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:59:18 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

Demonskrye-YEah, I could see that happening, Goliath withdrawing from the humans.
After all, like Ozzie Arcane poited out, Demona was a bit more intolerant of humans form the very beggining. Demona became hardened by the loss of two of her clans to humans and being hunted for a thousand years (which is all her fault ultimately). And Antiyonder also makes a good point about her future self implanting that seed of hatred into her younger self.
However, Goliath also has a temper, and I also want to point out that after Demona falls of the building (after trying to kill him)and he thinks she is dead he decides to destroy humans "starting with Xanatos". And had he been alone as Demona has all those years, and didnt have Hudson and Elisa tell him that he will be the "same as Demona" if he did it, I think he could've fallen into a similar cycle of hatred.
Irina
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:53:34 pm EDT from 68.236.185.9

Demonskrye> " Even if the fandom had been completely clear on the fact that Disney wasn't going to do anything beyond a few print ads in comic books, the situation wouldn't have been ideal, but I honestly don't know what could have been done better that would have resulted in Season Two Part One hitting its target."

True.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:16:01 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

Antiyonder> I think that's part of it, and particularly tragic, since her efforts to avoid the Wyvern Massacre actually led to it happening. Greg W's short writing (not yet a full story) "Hyppolyta" is a big part of the reason I think that there was a time when Demona actually believed that Goliath could really improve relations between humans and gargoyles and forge a lasting alliance based on mutual respect.

KingCobra> I don't know how Greg feels about his decision. My impression is that if he had said "You really need to put more advertising money behind this DVD release, it only would have resulted in Disney scrapping the release of the DVDs. The biggest issue I noticed was a lot of miscommuncation. I remember when there were rumors flying around that there was going to be an ad for the DVD on Toon Disney, something that obviously never materialized. Even if the fandom had been completely clear on the fact that Disney wasn't going to do anything beyond a few print ads in comic books, the situation wouldn't have been ideal, but I honestly don't know what could have been done better that would have resulted in Season Two Part One hitting its target.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:08:24 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Demonskrye> " On top of this, Greg Weisman had told Disney that the fanbase would promote that DVDs."

No offense to anyone, but I can't help but wonder how much he regrets that now.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:54:23 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

Ozzie and Demonskrye> I think I read this on Gargoyles Fan Site before, but another factor towards Demona going that far is that the memory of her trip to 994 with her older self left her with more of a bad impression of the humans. She knows the majority of the clan will be killed with the rest imprisioned in stone sleep, but she doesn't know that it is the result of her own decision.
Antiyonder
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:52:25 am EDT from 72.87.7.89

DVD Advertising> I know some of the people in the comment room now are relatively new and may not have heard this before, so let me make sure we're all on the same page and have the same information.

According to Greg Weisman, the choice at Disney wasn't between putting out the "Gargoyles" DVDs with full advertising support and putting them out with minimal to no support; it was a choice between a DVD release with little to no advertising and no DVDs at all. Now a lot of very smart, wonderful, reasonable people have said that this is ridiculous, insane even. Everyone knows you have to spend money to make money, so how could a huge company like Disney fail to realize that? I am certain that Disney is aware that a heavily advertised product will generally sell more. That's not the issue. The issue is how MUCH more product you can sell for each dollar you spend on advertising. Contrary to how it may seem, Disney does not have infinite resources. They're a business, they have shareholders that they're responsible to, and ultimately they need to try to ensure that every dollar they spend results in many more dollars coming in. Even when you;re talking about advertising space that Disney already owns, like Toon Disney, you're still paying for someone to edit together the clips for the ad, someone to do the voicover, and so on. So while everyone does know that advertising will sell more of a product, how much more is not as clear. So right or wrong, someone and Disney looked at the numbers they had on "Gargoyles" and the rest of the Disney Afternoon shows and said "We're not going to get enough of a return for the advertising dollars we might spend on this." On top of this, Greg Weisman had told Disney that the fanbase would promote that DVDs. Whether or not that was the right call is a whole other discussion. but the bottom line is, Disney didn't advertise the DVDs because they didn't think the benefits would be worth the cost, and they were told they didn't really have to.

Irina> Very interesting question! I think the show takes pains to show that Demona was already turning against humanity even before the Wyvern Massacre and her 1000 years of seeing "horrors that would blast your soul," while at the same time, showing that she wasn't born that way either. Life obviously wasn't any better for Goliath than it was for Demona, but he was still committed to improving relations between his clan and they humans they live alongside. I'd like to think that Goliath wouldn't become the vengeful creature that Demona did, but I could see him giving in to despair after a while, maybe withdrawing from the human world rather than continue to face the idea that humanity may never learn to accept gargoyles.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:38:56 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

I don't think Goliath could ever hate humans as much as Demona. Because he's always at least given them a chance. Demona on the other hand seemed to hate humans pretty much from the start and I doubt her attitude towards them is a result of her long life. She just has more rage and sorrow then she would if she had died along time ago.
Ozzie Arcane - [ozziearcane at yahoo dot com]
"Hello Booby! This is a trap!" - Eggplant Wizard
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:33:42 am EDT from 69.14.122.91

Trina> "So I was wondering if you think that had he been alive as long as Demona has, that he would hate humans just as much?"

Somehow, I doubt that Goliath would even be *willing* to live that long. As far as your question, I also can't see him hating all humans. Maybe some (those who would try to smash him and his clan) but not all.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 11:27:42 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

Hello everyone!
As usual I got a question, lol. I was watching thr Awakening the other day, showing it to someone again (I try to show it to as many ppl as possible lol) And I noticed that after the spell was broken that Goliath was very sceptical and distrusting of all humans. So I was wondering if you think that had he been alive as long as Demona has, that he would hate humans just as much?
thanx
Irina
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:33:48 am EDT from 68.236.185.9

@ Landon: This is exactly the thing I discussed some months ago - the Disney execs seem to think good promotion might be "too costy", and that the target audience will (us Gargoyles fans) will get the news either way and buy the DVDs so or so.

But, as you just pointed out, this is nonsense. People, especially parents, WANT to get good kids shows shoved up their backyards, so they just have to pay and be guaranteed their kids will be entartained and educated at the same time.
I've heard various young parents complain about how they can't find a decent show on DVD for their kids. If there would be serious marketing and promoting of GARGOYLES, and not just some quotations from fan sites, it would target a much larger audience, who are willing to buy.

This is the same thing that happenned to asian DVDs 5 years ago. I recall buying various DVDs, which cited quotes from FANGORIA forums and the likes. THIS IS NO MARKETING!!
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:24:07 am EDT from 84.191.240.192

Demonskrye - I certainly agree that any ad promoting Gargoyles should use the show's selling points, critic/journalist quotations, etc. You'd think that would be Marketing 101, but the ads used a list of fan sites as their selling point? Seriously? Wow.

I agree that Gargoyles can get new fans on merit alone and that all advertising should focus on merit, but I find it unlikely that nostalgia wouldn't play a role. Who is open-minded enough that they would try Gargoyles out of the blue with zero prior knowledge of the show (besides Star Trek fans)? I'm just considering the American stigma against adults watching cartoons. I'm sure there are cultural pockets out there that would give Gargoyles a try because they think it looks interesting, but your ad targeting would need to be a scalpel to find them.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 10:16:29 am EDT from 128.101.32.234

Landon> I agree that a lot went wrong with Disney's release and promotion of the Disney Afternoon shows, but I think overeliance on the idea that these shows had fan communities was part of it. We saw it with "Gargoyles," where promotion of the DVDs was - for better or for worse - almost entirely left up to the fans. And as I recall, the ads that ran in comics for "DuckTales" and "Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers" mentioned that there were lots of fan sites for the shows. That's fine to point out when you're trying to sell the retailers on putting the DVDs in their stores. But the general public? Who cares? All that says is "there are people who have been fans of these shows for a long time." Maybe that will get a few people to think "Well I guess I should see what all the fuss is about," but I think they're the exception rather than the rule. I remember some people saying after the dust had settled that the movie studio made a big mistake in emphasizing the dedicated fan following so much in the advertising for "Serenity." I think what it ended up saying to people was "This is a movie for people who love "Firefly," implying that if you haven't seen the TV show, you'll be uninterested or lost. Nostalgia can be an effective advertising tool, but it shouldn't be you only one in most cases. Start by saying "This is a great show that's got something for every age and will entertain and enthrall your whole family," not "Here's that show you loved a decade or more ago." Because with the latter, you're cutting off anyone who doesn't already know the show.

Kris> I was referring more to requests for shows like extremely average old Hanna-Barbera cartoons and "Pac-Man." I'd love to see "The Maxx" and "ReBoot" get major DVD releases. But even if I don't like a show, I'm fine with it getting a DVD release if someone wants it. I'd prefer to see everything that has a reasonable audience get a DVD release rather than not.

I'd buy a "Dexter Laboratory" DVD set just for episodes like "Mock 5" and "Dexter and Computress Get Mandark."
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 8:12:27 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

Demonskrye said:
"Interesting to see what shows other people want to see on DVD as well, since some of them are shows I regard as mediocre to awful."

Sometimes folks like to follow their favorite creators around (like some in that thread are mentioning Dexter's Lab. I've only seen a few episodes, I don't get the appeal, but I DO understand loving Genndy's efforts because Samurai Jack--which I still need to see/rent/buy the last two seasons for--IS awesome. It's the same thing with the folks that follow that Ren & Stimpy creator around. He's done some fun, very oddball stuff, but I don't get the appeal of ALL of it). A lot of the shows mentioned there were pretty good though, IMO. Most of those mentioned weren't as as good as Gargoyles (or the DC Animated franchise, ie Batman:TAS & Justice League and whatnot), but some were still very good (I'll take releases of The Maxx, Season 2 through 4 of ReBoot was great, Pirates of DarkWater was THE action-adventure cartoon when it debuted in `91, Visionaries was wonderfully dark for its time--although a number of `80s toons were, see Inhumanoids). I dunno, everyone's tastes are different. Admittedly, there's a lot of stuff I haven't seen (the much-praised Exo-Squad, which finally sees release in two weeks), so sometimes I want stuff to be released just so I'll have the opportunity to rent or blind-buy 'em, but I'm also willing to occasionally spend money on favorites that I know, objectively, aren't that amazing, but I still appreciate 'em (for example, I bought Gummi Bears Season 1. It's a beautiful-looking show, very polished, and I enjoyed many of the episodes, especially the Gummi mythology-focused ones, but I also felt during a lot of it that I would've rather been watching something more mature. The vocal talent and scripts were very well done though).

Some misconceptions over there about the show, I tried to clear them up in the comments (folks saying that the show bombed on DVD, gently corrected that Season 1 sold very well, Season 2 Part 1 did not, so it didn't bomb completely). Someone else thought the show was released in individual, few-episode volumes (like how Spectacular Spider-Man is currently being released before it gets a season set).

I'm recently a member of the Disney Movie Club and Disney Rewards. Have been talking up Gargoyles any chance I get (the odd survey, during the registration process, e-mailing the Disney Store to let 'em know it'd be cool if they included some Garg designs or iconic simple images along with all the other Disney material in the Create-a-shirt program, etc). Also stressed during polls and such that I wanna see them continue to support their animated-TV-on-DVD efforts and just animation in general (worrying trend of going more the Hannah Montana/Raven/Suite Life of Zack & Cody route over there), 'cause that's what gets my dollars. Interesting that the Ducktales movie, "Treasure of the Lost Lamp", is an exclusive through the Club.

If they'd just go the print-to-order route, we could have it real soon (though it would probably have next to no extras, if any).

Good theory about the `90s nostalgia thing. Yeah, if it took until the mid-`00s for it to really kick in (I mean the nostalgia was always there and people were wearing Decepticon t-shirts all throughout the `90s, but it didn't really get MAINSTREAM and to the point where studios were making live action films and bringing it all back like with He-Man's 2002 show, until the early to mid 2000s), then maybe by 2012 we'll see forward momentum on some of the quality, temporarily forgotten `90s shows.
Kris - [plekopleko at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 4:20:00 am EDT from 69.17.187.216

From the Newsarama article comments:

"Power Rangers. 17 seasons, and only ONE has had a full season's worth of episodes released (Operation Overdrive).

Gargoyles comes as a shock."

POWER RANGERS!!! *shakes fist*
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Fri, Apr 3, 2009 12:04:04 am EDT from 216.243.177.48

Demonskrye - I disagree. I think nostalgia is enough to sell plenty of Disney Afternoon DVDs and the biggest missing factor is advertising. Disney's bread-and-butter audience for people who make nostalgia purchases is the internet and Disney has no idea how to tap it. The number of people who loved the show but have no idea it's still around is staggering. If Disney had properly advertised on the internet, Gargoyles and the rest of the Disney Afternoon would have been a runaway hit. In fact, they still can and it still would.

But I'm not too worried about it. The new Transformers and G.I. Joe movies reveal cartoon nostalgia as a powerful monetary force. I think if we wait a few years, the 80s nostalgia boom will swing around to the 90s. The generation that was raised on early-to-mid nineties cartoons will come of age and start leading Hollywood and pop-culture blogs. Shows like Family Guy and Robot Chicken and sites like Newsarama, IGN, and any of the brazillion retro/list/spoof/review sites will soon be run my Millennials. (Or hell, it could happen on Facebook, I don't know. Has anyone started a Gargoyles Facebook group?) People will watch the parodies and read the articles or rediscover Gargoyles on their own. I'm confident that Disney Afternoon will come back, at least to enough of an extent to finish the DVD lines. Gargoyles is just in a weird transitional period right now where it's stuck between long- and short-term cultural memory.

The other fruitful selling point, in my opinion, is the TNG voice actor angle (that's how I discovered the show, actually). You only need to look at the Family Guy buzz to see how hot nostalgia for that show still is (and will be). It kind of annoyed me when everyone called it the first non-Trek reunion for the actors. This is old, but a good place to start for spreading the word: http://trekgargoyles.ytmnd.com/
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 11:52:33 pm EDT from 216.243.177.48

Landon> It's a good article and it's certainly good to see "Gargoyles" getting some more attention. Interesting to see what shows other people want to see on DVD as well, since some of them are shows I regard as mediocre to awful.

I think the whole Disney Afternoon shows on DVD was an experiment for Disney. I haven't kept much of an eye on whether or not they do season sets of their live-actions shows, but I'm guessing not. The impression I get from what Greg has said and what I saw of the launch of all the DVDs is that Disney really wasn't sure exactly how these DVDs would sell or how to target the best market for them. I think they were clearly hoping to get a lot of fans of the shows and general 80s and 90s nostalgia fans interested, but it's unfortunate that they never really made any effort to appeal to an audience beyond that. Nostalgia can only get you so far, especially when you're talking about shows from more recent decades. The death of syndication and the rise of cable mean that older shows tend not to get as much play in reruns as they once did and audience are more and more fragmented, so unless your show was a huge hit, you can't be sure that people will see it on the shelf and say "Oh! I remember watching that! I should get it!"
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:11:44 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

"Say what you want. Personally, as far as many are concerned, this is a crying shame. This series put the names of Weisman, Frank Paur and voice artists such as Keith David on the map. It was probably the most adventurous and original piece of work Disney TV ever developed, as well as its most visually spectacular."

Very well summed up. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 6:25:21 pm EDT from 84.191.243.63

Gargoyles gets some lovin' on Newsarama, which is a pretty big site: http://www.newsarama.com/tv/090402-animated-shorts-top-5-missing-dvds.html
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 5:49:27 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

I thought this was interesting: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/04/disneys_iger_willing_to_put_ca.php

Iger is praising putting Disney shows online, which coincides with their recent YouTube deal. But then he says:

"Even in this bear market, we remain bullish on the prospects for cable television both as a platform and an industry," he said. "We continue to invest heavily in programming to strengthen our existing brands, like ESPN, Disney Channel and ABC Family, and to launch new ones where we see opportunity, like Disney XD."

He's using Disney XD as an example of how committed Disney is to offline cable. Considering the recent YouTube deal included no animation channels, it doesn't bode well for getting TSS-M or Gargoyles online any time soon. And how long has Kim Possible been for sale on iTunes?

Note that Sony owns TSS-M and they'll probably be the ones to sell it online, but nevertheless it's more proof that Disney thinks their live TV properties are a better investment these days.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:59:34 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

"We want something to release to counter Transformers. Gargoyles has a very similar feel to those robots, and should appeal to the same demographic. The movie will be a buddy show between magic creatures and a hero."

I laughed about this.

Hard.

(on the inside)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:59:21 pm EDT from 84.191.243.63

Hey guys, I'm being a bit proactive here -- I wrote an AFD story yesterday about a Gargoyles live action movie (with "Elroy Maza" substituted for Elisa, among other things in the article that should have been blatant indications it was an April Fools story) and apparently it's been picked up by the blogosphere. I know of one site that is carrying it as a real story, NOT citing my story (so the AFD clues are no longer obvious) and just got an e-mail from someone else asking me if I verified by information because it's on another site. (Sent an e-mail back asking for the link, haven't heard yet.)

I'm laughing my ass off, because the story (linked in my name) was pretty blatantly an AFD story. But I'm also wanting the fandom to know it's NOT real, alas, in case this mutates out of control. Too many of you know me -- I don't want to be strangled by someone at the next con I manage to attend!
Leva Cygnet - [leva at firefox dot org]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:53:32 pm EDT from 96.14.16.66

Hey guys, I'm being a bit proactive here -- I wrote an AFD story yesterday about a Gargoyles live action movie (with "Elroy Maza" substituted for Elisa, among other things in the article that should have been blatant indications it was an April Fools story) and apparently it's been picked up by the blogosphere. I know of one site that is carrying it as a real story, NOT citing my story (so the AFD clues are no longer obvious) and just got an e-mail from someone else asking me if I verified by information because it's on another site. (Sent an e-mail back asking for the link, haven't heard yet.)

I'm laughing my ass off, because the story (linked in my name) was pretty blatantly an AFD story. But I'm also wanting the fandom to know it's NOT real, alas, in case this mutates out of control. Too many of you know me -- I don't want to be strangled by someone at the next con I manage to attend!
Leva Cygnet - [leva at firefox dot org]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:53:15 pm EDT from 96.14.16.66

A reminder for those who are fans - "Mysterious Cities Of Gold" comes out on DVD this week. It's tvshowsondvd.com's pick of the week!
Wingless
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:41:58 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

@ Demonskrye: Whoa, bad news, that about your friend. :(
I've come to e,brace comics so much in 08, due to finally having the resources to buy them. ;) But starting in the moment that Batman died and the industry seems to "go down", is quite a sad starting point.

I would be more optimistic about GARGOYLES though. They were SLGs best running title, and probably a bigger company might pick it up and put some more promotion into it...
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 12:33:24 pm EDT from 84.191.243.63

Demonskrye> "Maybe I misread something, but wasn't the latest word from Vado that they would be out in time for the San Diego Comic Con?"

Oh, really?

I missed that little bit of info. Not that I can afford SDCC either, (dammit) but, regardless, thanks for sharing that.

I'll probably end up either ordering it/them from Amazon, or (more likely) my local comic shop after they're released.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 12:22:39 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

Brook> It seems like the comics industry in general is feeling the pinch. A friend of mine was going to have his graphic novel published by Dark Horse, but they just canceled it. There were various factors that led to their decision, but belt tightening due to the bad economy seemed to be a big one. I wouldn't be too surprised to see some comics publishers go under in the next year or so. (It's not unheard of even in more prosperous times). I just hope SLG, Boom!, and Kingdom Comics can manage to keep their heads above water, since right now, they're the three best shots we have for seeing more "Gargoyles" comics.

KingCobra> I haven't seen anything to indicate that the new trades will be launched exclusively at the Gathering. Maybe I misread something, but wasn't the latest word from Vado that they would be out in time for the San Diego Comic Con? That's about a month before the Gathering. If everything goes as planned, the comic will either come out before SDCC, or debut there and be available at retail shortly thereafter. It wouldn't make much sense for SLG to bring the comic out at SDCC, hang onto it until the Gathering, and then finally make it available to the general public.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 12:12:38 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Demonskrye> "However, trade paperbacks collecting the remaining published issues and including issues #9 - 12 of the main comic and #5 and 6 of the spin-off as "bonus material" are slated for publication sometime in the first half of this year."

Sometime this summer, last I'd heard.

Hopefully, it won't be only available at The Gathering first. I mean, I don't have a problem with waiting. But the thing is, being a middle-class working public guy in these tough economic times?

VidTheKid and I may not even be able to afford to attend the Gathering this year. Which really blows, cause I was looking forward to seeing L.A. again. :(
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 11:43:10 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

@ Demonskry: "but SLG's current financial position is rumored to be unstable"

this

I think Greg announcing the axing of his two upcomming projects pretty much confirmed that SLG has to wait and see how it all goes... what is really sad, the guys were up to some good stuff, especially with Greg. :(
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:46:15 am EDT from 84.191.243.63

Othello> I'm just going to repost something I wrote a few weeks ago:

Unfortunately, both "Gargoyles" and the "Bad Guys" spin-off suffered from frequent lengthy delays caused by a variety of factors. These led to declining sales which, combined with Disney's licensing fees, caused Slave Labor to pass on renewing the license. The main series ended with issue #8 and "Bad Guys" ended with issue #4. No more single issues will be released. However, trade paperbacks collecting the remaining published issues and including issues #9 - 12 of the main comic and #5 and 6 of the spin-off as "bonus material" are slated for publication sometime in the first half of this year. SLG president Dan Vado has also expressed an interest in going back to Disney with a new proposal for publishing "Gargoyles" graphic novels, but SLG's current financial position is rumored to be unstable, so such plans are up in the air at the moment.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 8:48:54 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

"-The American Civil War was caused by gay Mexicans."

OH EM GIEH!!

I liked that Jonny Modlin prank... But every time from now on, when JM post, we should just drop the line "I wonder who is behind the Johnny Modline character today..."
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 7:14:48 am EDT from 84.191.243.63

Antiyonder> Touche'.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 3:37:56 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

KingCobra_582> If it works, then why not go through with it?
Antiyonder
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 1:29:52 am EDT from 72.87.7.89

Antiyonder> Haha, very funny. *sarcasm*

*goes back to listening to Mudvayne and All That Remains*
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 12:50:00 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

Are they gonna just keep doing Gargoyles in comic form?
Othello
Gatgfan
posted @ Thu, Apr 2, 2009 12:46:13 am EDT from 70.162.249.241

I haven't been in here for a super long time. Hope all is well for ppl. Love to chat things up, but since it's been so long I guess I'll just try to come in more often and watch what's going on.
Lexy
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 10:05:50 pm EDT from 72.208.156.78

Forgot to remove "Jonny's signature".
Antiyonder
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 8:01:04 pm EDT from 72.87.7.89

April Fools. Came across one of Jonny's comment and did a copy/paste for my little prank. Nice to know it worked.
Antiyonder
Jonny Modlin
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 8:00:06 pm EDT from 72.87.7.89

Jonny > Don't know, don't know, NO. Are you capable of saying anything else? I'm bored with this game.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 7:56:05 pm EDT from 173.88.144.38

Hey all, it's the first of the month again, so you get my quick peek in for a link drop... MGC is updated again, so it's time to head over, check out the entries from last month, and then vote for your favs! ^_^
Also, new topic is Gargs Down Under, so I'm really looking forward to what all the artists some up with!
kess - [< MGC]
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 7:52:22 pm EDT from 68.188.142.25

When will Disney release Gargoyles Season 2, Volume 2 on DVD, so that I can complete the entire series? When will Disney release Gargoyles: The Complete Series on Blu-Ray Disc, HD-DVD or DVD that I will get? Is Gargoyles Season 2, Volume 2 scheduled for DVD release yet?
Jonny Modlin
Jonny Modlin
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 7:33:01 pm EDT from 72.87.7.89

That was me. Just an April Fool's joke. Saw Brook's signature and couldn't resist. ( ;
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
Happy Pagan New Year!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 6:46:07 pm EDT from 71.62.136.51

*cough*

0_o
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 6:35:43 pm EDT from 75.65.27.129

Brook: Here are some fun facts you may find interesting.

-The Holocaust never happened.

-President Obama is secretly Golbert Gotfried.

-The American Civil War was caused by gay Mexicans.

-V8 is really 1/8 gasoline.

Thanks for agreeing!
Rebel - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
Happy Pagan New Year!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 5:47:30 pm EDT from 71.62.136.51

@ Anonymous: I got that news yesterday, and pushed it aside as "one more of these yuppie-things"... but looking at youtube now, they REALLY do it. :(

No fun with Amazon mp3, I buy all my records (also the new ones) on vinyl. So, no fix with that too. :(
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 4:09:52 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

Brook, you in Germany? If so, or if you are close by, Youtube probably isn't deleting them, but identifying you as German and blocking you. The GEMA demands money for each song from one of the people associated with them, and since that's quite a lot, many videos will be blocked in the future.
And no the GEMA thing is no April's joke. ->
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/YouTube-sperrt-Videos-mit-GEMA-Musik-Update--/meldung/135532

On the other side, Amazon started it's MP3 download service in Germany.
Anonymouse
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:51:34 pm EDT from 89.246.171.203

Brook> Those are... better, I suppose. I wouldn't immediately turn them off if I heard them come up on the radio, but they're not something I'd go out of my way to hear. I'm sorry.
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:49:21 pm EDT from 71.56.36.35

I like Alt. Country. :) Wilco, Ryan Adams, Whiskeytown, Bright Eyes... that stuff. :)

And Dylan, though he's hardly Country.

And Johnny Cash... who is totally not country...
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:43:50 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

I'm a fan of country music...but not so much the recent stuff. Most recent country music sounds too much like pop to me. I'm not saying that I like the OLD OLD stuff, but I generally like the country music from about 10 years ago and earlier.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:40:06 pm EDT from 75.65.27.129

*slowly raises hand* I'm a country music fan. Anyone else? *listens to the crickets chirp*
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:29:55 pm EDT from 209.243.38.9

@ Kerry: Then try KID A. Totally different. I remember, when it came out, and people talked about how that album is "unlistenable" and how you "can't make out what (singer) Thom orke is singing... if that IS him..." XD

Shame on that, but it probably comes with time. I wasn't into NUrvana until I was, like, 19...

@ Wingless: Well, imagine my reaction when I saw this the first time, 11 years old. :)
Check out these 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uYWYWPc9HU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs1DX32t38c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqsyXdj_p_I

The last one is my favourite for sure.
These guys just do the most amazing videos. Especially the last one was heavily discussed on how they actually made it.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:29:29 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

Brook> I didn't want to judge the whole of Radiohead, that's why I named the song and expressed my displeasure at the only thing of theirs I'd been exposed to. (I just wish that if everyone hated it so much they'd stop playing it on the radio!) Unfortunately, I don't care for the one you linked, either. I think it's the singer's voice I have a problem with.

But not everything I've heard of Nirvana is on Nevermind; I don't like the tracks from In Utero that I've heard, either. I just don't care for the style... it tends to sound weary and tired, and that's just not appealing to me.

Both may have powerful statements to make, but I don't enjoy listening to the music itself, and that gets in the way. -..-
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:23:12 pm EDT from 71.56.36.35

*watches video* er, that has to be the strangest thing I've seen in my life.
Wingless
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 3:10:09 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

@ Kerry: Ah, darn, youtube is pulling off all the video clips... hope this works??

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

Amazing song, especially after the 2:40 mark.

AND a great animated video. :)

Demonskrye, check this. Yeah, it is pretty "ugly", but definetely a classic in music video animation, and great humour. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 2:46:16 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

@ Kerry: You can't judge Radiohead on Creep. It is their first single, and from their first, VERY hated album. Radiohead themselves refuse to play that song live to this day and their fans loathe it.

Check out the entire PARABNOID ANDROID song (from OK COMPUTER) and the LP KID A. Both are totally outstanding, lifechanging records, but try Paranoid Android for OK-C first.

For Nirvana, definetely get IN UTERO, Nevermind is a bit overrated IMHO. IN UTERO is the most tragic and honest record you'll ever hear in your life, and a unique artistic statement.

I loathe Opera Metal, so Within Temptation is a definite no go for me then again... but check the above mentioned out, you might like it. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 2:43:51 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

Brook> I can't speak for Placebo, but I've never enjoyed Nirvana, and the only Radiohead song I ever heard on the radio (Creep) I can't stand. I'd much rather listen to Rob Zombie, Within Temptation, and Flyleaf.

So I really hope you're not implying a lack of intelligence on the part of people who don't enjoy the bands you've named. :P
Kerry (Kth) Boyd
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 2:19:01 pm EDT from 71.56.36.35

@ Demonskrye: Although, I guess you have to be intelligent to some degree to feel attracted to such complex and daring shows.

It's like with music. Back in the 90s we had Nirvana, Radiohead and Placebo. Nowadays, music is all like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM

:(
THIS IS WHAT YOUR YOUTH IS BEING TAUGHT, AMERICA!!

;P
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 1:09:41 pm EDT from 84.191.236.179

Roy> Interesting. I know some movie studios take how films will play to markets other than the US into consideration, like the bits of animation in certain Pixar films that were changed for the non-US market. But the issue of differing standards of beauty never occurred to me. Have there been any other animated characters who are presented as "beautiful" who your Japanese friends found unattractive?

Queeny> Put like that, I think it becomes a chicken or the egg case. Does watching quality TV shows like "Gargoyles" teach people to behave more maturely? Or are people who are already more mature attracted to shows like "Gargoyles"? Personally, I think it's tough to attribute a person's behavior or level of maturity to any one influence. But if you feel that "Gargoyles" has helped to make you a more mature person, that's great!
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 12:16:53 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

@ Queeney: Well, probably intelligenter people would like GARGOYLES, and hence watch it. For the people you discribe from your class, they probably tried Gargoyles and thought it was boring, and went back to their THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS DVDs.

@ Gore: If Disney actually announce today that S2Vol2 comes out... I'll be PISSED!!
Even if they mean it, just cause they thought today would be a good day!
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 11:14:14 am EDT from 84.191.236.179

@Demonskrye:

I suppose what your saying is correct, but I'm part of the Gargoyles Gen, born in 1994 and I find my friend and I are much more mature than others our age. Gargoyles taught us a lot about accepting other people, regardless of skin colour or heritage and we learnt to look at others and speaking to them without judging them. But others in our year group would simply make fun of people because of how they look or talk! You honestly can't tell me that Gargoyles didn't help me hit the mature curve quicker than others.
Queeny - [beelzemon_lover_2k8 at hotmail dot co dot uk]
"Well, I like a man who bring's me weapons" - Hyena, episode 2-1-1
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 10:51:29 am EDT from 84.66.56.175

Don't forget about how pop culture jokes can limit your audience. Japanese friends of mine think Shrek is a bore. Not surprising if you don't understand the (cultural)basis of the jokes. If you're going international, cut the pop culture jokes. Not everything thinks American.

And another interesting point of view was the beauty of the princess. While in Japan, my industry friends thought Fiona was beaten too long with the ugly stick and looked way too old for a stereotypical princess.
Roy
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 10:17:17 am EDT from 71.84.197.71

*sighs* Happy April Fools.

I swear, if any of my friends claim to be moving to Alaska AGAIN! :P
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 9:54:46 am EDT from 209.243.38.9

Brook> Pop culture references in animated features aimed at children are at least as old as "Aladdin," so "Shrek" was hardly breaking new ground. Used sparingly they can make for good humor, but if you want your film to remain relevant and enjoyable five years from now, they're best kept to a minimum.

Queeny> I think it's more of a tendency to look back on the time we grew up in through rose-colored glasses, which is not exclusive to people who grew up in the 90s. As Patrick says, it's very easy for us to look back now that we're older and think "Kids today are so much less mature than we were" in part because we've conveniently forgotten our own immature behavior from when we were younger. It's equally easy to paint the output of entire decades with broad brushstrokes. There were plenty of bad cartoons in the 90s and there are plenty of good cartoons now. I haven't seen enough of "Phineas and Ferb" to have a well-formed opinion of it, but from what I have seen, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. It would be like me saying "Kids today are so much more mature than they were in the 90s because they watch cartoons like "Avatar" (a much better modern cartoon to compare to "Gargoyles") and 90s kids watched stuff like "Captain Planet."
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 8:54:13 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

*opens the garage doors to the cr and motions for a dump truck to come in. The dump trump comes in and dumps its cargo, 100% NaCl, next to Patrick.*

I heard a rumor that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around that there was a rumor going around about people spreading rumors on April 1.

Some rumors are acceptable fun, like I'll give you a million dollars for a cat, since everybody should know it's a joke. Another rumors, like a virus attack, aren't funny at all.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happened to simplicity?
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 7:27:21 am EDT from 98.20.141.252

We should probably ask our parents if THEY thought we were mature in the 1990s. It's very easy, being 15 years older than today's group of people who were our age in 1994, to look at them and say "stupid kids, get off my lawn!" :P

P.S. - Sorry, no dubious "news" updates from me on this fine first day of April. And I'll be taking any such items I read today in here with a huge grain of salt.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 6:58:19 am EDT from 173.88.144.38

I prefer to call it the Rule of Thirds, since it usually applies to the third movie in a trilogy. "Empire" was far better than "A New Hope," and raised our expectations to be dashed by "Jedi."

To be honest, "Back to the Future, Part III" had some problems, but not enough to make me dislike it. As far as third movies go, it's definitely one of the good ones.

If I had to pick a Trilogy where each sequel got successively worse, though, that would have to be Robocop. I loved the first movie. It's one of my favorites. Both sequels, however, sucked ass (one of their many shortcomings was they didn't bother to continue a theme from the first movie, which is the question of what makes a person human, if it's merely flesh or something more intangible).
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Free will... it's like butterfly wings. Once touched, they never get off the ground. No, I merely set the stage. You pull your own strings." -John Milton ("The Devil's Advocate")
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 6:55:02 am EDT from 71.62.136.51

I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed this but... why does the 'Gargoyles Generation' (or Generation 90's, which ever one) seem to be much more mature than the other generations? I'm not sure if it's because of the cartoons we watched or if it's because of the crappy music that this generation is listening too but I think those who watch Gargoyles or any other 90's show are much more mature than the generation who watch 'Phineas and Ferb'.

Just a thought.
Queeny - [beelzemon_lover_2k8 at hotmail dot co dot uk]
"Well, I like a man who brings me weapons"
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 4:43:23 am EDT from 212.219.240.74

Brook> "However, if you LOVE Saw, then heck out some of Daria Argento's and Mario Bava's films."

I've actually seen some of Dario's (The Three Mothers trilogy) fims, and am looking to checking out some of Mario's work as well.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Wed, Apr 1, 2009 12:06:14 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

"Shrek"> I never liked the franchise, and I've seen the first two movies. They weren't really subversive of anything in the end, because a lot of the jokes they made were standard fairytale-spoof stuff or pop-culture reference stuff, and the dynamics of the characters grew more sitcom-ish as the series went on. The actual meat of the story, the plot and the characters, just weren't entertaining enough to make me overlook this.
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream"--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 8:20:37 pm EDT from 216.36.154.204

@ King Cobra: True, but even with Classic films. I mean, "The Good the Bad and the Ugly"? "Three Colours: Red"? "Once Upon a Time in America"? "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance"? All at least as good as the films that came before. :)

SAW... oh man... I saw the premier of that on a filmfest... I love good horror films, and thus had to dig my way all through 70s italian giallo, and so, SAW just didn't do it for me. :( The idea was great, but I think having 2 comic-over-the-top-characters in the situation, and giving them 8 hours or so to make a decision, didn't make it particularily interresting. I thought it was OK, but was surprised when 2 came out. Didn't bother for the rest though.
However, if you LOVE Saw, then heck out some of Daria Argento's and Mario Bava's films. And a film called "The House with the Windows that laugh". That last one is a crime flick, but stunning pictures and an ending... man, the Saw ending is absolutely unsurprising against THAT one!

@ Demonskrye: True that. But back then, jokes on pop-culture and adult humour (that bird... that... bird) were quite a new thing in children-cartoons, and the underlying Dreamworks vs Disney theme was fun to watch. I think if I WOULD watch it now, I wouldn't appreciate it as much as back in the cinemas, but still like it.

And I know what you mean with ugly design, but it never bothered me. It NEED to be ugly, ya know... ;)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 7:12:43 pm EDT from 84.191.213.111

Shrek> My feelings on the Shrek films are a little conflicted. On the one hand, I can't deny that they've made me laugh and I thought the second one generally improved on the first one. But I have a lot of problems with the two films I've seen. The character design has always struck me as ugly, and not just in a "Shrek's an ogre so he's supposed to be ugly" way. The jokes are comprised of too much toilet humor which I hate and pop culture references which just get really dated really fast. And probably most importantly, the story in both film bugs me.

(If you haven't seen either "Shrek" or "Shrek 2" and are planning on doing so and don't want to know the ending, I would suggest you stop reading, but you really have no reasonable expectation of spoiler warnings. The first film came out when I was in college and much as I want to think otherwise, that was a long time ago.)

OK, so "Shrek" sets itself up as this subversive take on the animated fairy tale popularized by Disney, right? And admittedly, they do manage some good jokes riffing on the cliches of the genre. but when it comes down to it, the overall message of the film isn't all that different from a traditional fairy tale. Instead of "Oh, how convenient; The beast turns into a handsome prince so he can marry the beautiful girl who loves him" it's "Oh, how convenient; the princess turn into an ogress so she can marry the ugly ogre who loves her." So she's not beautiful anymore. Big deal. Shrek find her beautiful, maybe even more so than when she was human. No one else cares except for the jerk she was going to marry and he's a jerk anyways. I think Donkey's relationship with Dragon is a much better example of exposing the fallacy of the transformative power of love than Srek's with Fiona. How much better would the film have been if Fiona was cursed to turn into a werewolf?

"Shrek 2" does do a better job of showing that there are consequences to Fiona becoming an ogre. The character design improved a lot, which is a good thing because part of the reason I went to see it was because my friend's cousin worked on the film as a character designer. I liked the subplot with Fiona's parents and Puss was generally fun, though I think his initial role as an ogre slayer could have been played out a little longer. But it's still fairly predictable. I called the twist of Shrek turning into a human just from seeing the trailers. I saw another assessment of the film after it came out that suggested that Shrek asking Fiona to choose whether they should stay human or turn back into ogres is kind of a loaded question and that the scene would have played better if Shrek had decided on his own to stay human for Fiona and Fiona had stopped him from going through with it. And the end reveal of the baby dronkeys was unfortunately spoiled for me by the tie-in toyline.

I never felt any need to see the third film, which seemed to be upping the amount of bodily fluid jokes. I'll admit that Donkey singing "Baby Got Back" while Dragon waves her tail in the camera makes me chuckle, but overall, the films don't do it for me.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:54:14 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Brook> "Aw, c'mon, there are loads of trilogys where the third film es the best, or at least as good as part 1 and 2."

True, but that depends on personal tastes as well. For me, it was the Scream trilogy and the Saw (for me, it was a trilogy since I refuse to acknowledge Saw IV and V) films.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:53:27 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

@ Patrick: Depends. I think you have to see the entire thing to understand all of the characters, but one might skip season one to get to the action.

Personally, I think Season 4 really is the best so far, and definetely the one that people will remember most.

""Shrek" is following the long-established "rule of sequels" where each one is a little bit worse that the one that came before. See also the "Back to the Future" and original "Star Wars" trilogy."

Aw, c'mon, there are loads of trilogys where the third film es the best, or at least as good as part 1 and 2.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:45:39 pm EDT from 84.191.213.111

"Lost" is the most aptly named show on television. Unless you've been watching it since day one, don't expect to be able to follow ANY of it.

"Shrek" is following the long-established "rule of sequels" where each one is a little bit worse that the one that came before. See also the "Back to the Future" and original "Star Wars" trilogy.
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:32:59 pm EDT from 173.88.144.38

I enjoyed Shrek when it came out. I also liked Shrek 2; it wasn't as funny as the first one, but I liked the focus on Shrek and Fiona's relationship. Shrek the Third just did not work for me. The humor seemed more forced. So the next sequels and spin off I'm not likely to watch. I am little interested in Shrek the Musical, if only because there is a little more character explanation. Otherwise, kinda neutral on the idea of it.

One thing I am happy about when it comes to current TV is ABC is restarting "Cupid" tonight. I'll miss Jeremy Piven as the Trevor Hale, aka Cupid, but I'm hoping the writing and performances are as clever as I remember the original series to be. And it won't get screwed by the network.
Asatira
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 4:46:14 pm EDT from 68.190.20.172

Shrek > Im with Anthony. Shrek 1 was wonderful beyond words. Shrek 2 was not half bad. Shrek 3 was a bigger mess than the others. I dont have much hope for Shrek 4 but I am warrily optimistic for the Puss-In-Boots spin-off since he is my new favorite character. Ill only see Shrek 4 in the hopes of seeing more Donkey, Dragon, and their freaky adorable babies ^_^

Want to know what my biggest complaint for Shrek 2 was? Not enough Dragon! Especially since I was dying to see how the potion that Donkey drank affect her too. I wish we could have gotten a glimpse of that :)
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 4:29:28 pm EDT from 209.243.38.9

In my opinion:
Shrek - Hilarious (primarily because of Eddie Murphy)
Shrek 2 - Less funny (added Puss in Boots, taking away potential Eddie Murphy dialogue)
Shrek 3 - Even less funny (added Arthur, kept Puss in Boots, taking away even more lines that could have been written for Eddie Murphy)
Anthony Tini
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 4:21:34 pm EDT from 159.240.11.254

Brook> Well, I don't know if there will be a TV series or not, though there probably won't be. My imagination was just running away with me when I made that comment.

As far as Shrek 3, it's decent. I found it funny, but then I'm the kind of guy who likes a lot of films, even when other people may hate/bash it. I'm just someone who likes bad movies. LMAO.

All I can say is watch it and decide for yourself. But IMO, Shrek 3 is pretty damn good.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 4:07:27 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

XD

PUSS IN BOOTS SPIN OFF!! FECK, YEAH!! :D

I've not seen Shreck 3 et, but heard pretty mixed-to-bad-reviews. :S I dunno I I should just wait for 4 to come out (or the TV series (god, imagine a mesh-up of Shrek, LOST, Twin Peaks and Aqua Teen Hunger Force = best show ever to grace the face of earth!!)).

Anyways, is 3 any good?
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 3:53:19 pm EDT from 84.191.213.111

Brook> " I loved Shrek 1. I think it was the first CGI-feauture I saw in a cinema."

Heh.

Major Shrek fan here. Got the first 2 on tape, and the 3rd on Blu-Ray. Also waiting for Shrek 4 and the Puss In Boots spin-off movie.

And now, suddenly, I'm visualizing about how cool it might be to see a Shrek TV series...
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 3:49:53 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

@ King Cobra: I loved Shrek 1. I think it was the first CGI-feauture I saw in a cinema. But on the other hand, I absolutely detested Monsters Inc.
I can't really tell you why. Something about Shrek was so hillarious and cool. But Monsters Inc. totally turned me off. I think I laughed 2 times during the entire film... I had quite the same experiences with Madagascar and Ice Age. But I think it has to do with the new generation of animation in general. I remember, when I was a kid, how I totally detested the Lion King, and every Disney film that came after. Pocahontas was a mess.

I think I'm more into adult animation. "Waking Life", "Waltz with Bashir" and "Renaissance" I thought to be absolutely outstanding, I don't even have to mention Oshii I guess. ;)

Thing is, I'm not entirely against kids animation, but most trailers I see are quite boring and bland to me. I loved the idea to Wall-E, but what I saw in the trailer looked more like an attempt in goofy punchline-jokes than the mentined Chaplin-esque comedy, Kung Fu Panda I don't even want to mention.

@ Anthony: I wholeheartedly agree with LOST. :) The writing, especially of Season 4 was STELLAR, the actors are very good to brilliant and the entire story feels very natural, although it is totaly absurd.

Some weeks ago, I watched a re-run of an X-Files EP, and, to my horror, THAT show felt and looked SO dated. What scared me off as a kid now seemed to be flat and bland and obvious, even the back then genuinly creepy atmosphere feels now forced and over-the-top.
Shows like LOST truly are timeless - the look and atmosphere are grim, yet polished, the actors are very, very good,a nd the storyline dosn't provide freak-outs every week, but is build up step by step.

Anyways, if ANYBODY in here hasn't seen LOST, start now. Probably even wit the Season 2 pilot, cause this is where things really get going, but WATCH IT!!

@ Landon: What has Disney to do with Ani... ma... tion?
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 3:46:23 pm EDT from 84.191.213.111

Anthony Tini> "3) I also heard Power Rangers isn't officially cancelled."

Oh, man. Let's hope it IS. Otherwise, PR may end up having more 'retirement' than Stephen King.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 3:45:57 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

Speaking of Hulu, Disney has finalized their deal with YouTube: http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/corporate/2009/2009_0331_you_tube.html Of course there's no mention of animation. Why would the Walt Disney Company care about animation?
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 2:37:50 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

1) LOST is the best show on television, IMO.
2) I also heard Smallville may be getting another season since Tom Welling is signed on.
3) I also heard Power Rangers isn't officially cancelled.
Anthony Tini
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 2:29:42 pm EDT from 159.240.11.254

Brook> "Shame. I'm not that into CGI-animated comedies"

How are you on movies like, say, Shrek?

Wingless> Actually, I've been hearing that Smallville may get another season.

Demonskrye> That was very articulate and well said.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 2:23:30 pm EDT from 99.22.69.82

@ Wingless: Give LOST and HEROES a chance. Both are very, very good, especially Lost after S2!! Tuly epic stuff.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 1:35:47 pm EDT from 84.191.213.111

Let's face it, TV has become a wasteland of Reality shows and infomercials. The Canadian versions of TV Land and Deja Veiw don't even run any TV shows from the 1960s anymore(I mean-Rosanne & Who's the Boss-? Give me a break!) Our nostalgia cartoon channel isn't overly great either-Teletoon Retro. It pretty much airs the standards-Flintstones, Jetsons, Scooby Doo, Fat Abert, Bugs Bunny(mostly edited ones). The only recent treats for me have been the Pink Panther & Banana Splits, other than that...

We don't get Sci Fi in Canada-of course we have to have our own channel "Space" which does it's own thing. I don't watch it-since it airs mostly reruns of current shows. 24, Lost, Smallville, Heroes etc. (not my thing-cept Smallville-which ends this year anyway *sigh*
Wingless
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 1:19:34 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

Concerning Monsters vs. Aliens> My room mate took his niece and nephew to it and was disappointed. He said it wasn't very funny and it was very short. He said it also focused on the heroine too much, which I guess would be surprising if you're to see a movie called Monsters vs. Aliens.
Anthony Tini
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 1:15:44 pm EDT from 159.240.11.254

@ Rebel: Shame. I'm not that into CGI-animated comedies (for kids), but the trailer had me laughing, and the heroes and the heroine really seemed like a nice bunch of ideas thrown into a blender and made pop culture. Was the film unfunny or just badly scripted?
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 11:50:55 am EDT from 84.191.213.111

I saw Monsters vs. Aliens last night and didn't like it that much. It might have simply been because I was really tired, but I slept through most of the movie. It was probably a combination of my tiredness and also the movie being boring (at least the parts that I was awake for), but I suspect if it had been more interesting I'd have stayed awake.

I might go see it again sometime when I'm more well-rested, just to see if that changes my opinion of it. Maybe I slept through all the good parts, who knows? Anyway, I really wanted to like it because the main hero is female, but meh. I'll just have to watch it again and see.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 11:35:47 am EDT from 198.175.205.251

KingCobra> Well, Comedy Central is still focused on comedy. Nickelodeon is still shows for kids. Spike is still targeting a largely male audience. (It's probably a little more targeted than that, but I don't know how else to describe it.) You can still shop from home on the home shopping channels. HGTV still focuses on the home and garden. The shows on Food Network are still largely about food. So we're not yet at the point where every single channel is interchangeable quite yet.

I'm guessing that part of what's driving this unfortunate trend is channels not performing as well as their parent companies want them to. It could also be other factors, like a head of Cartoon Network who evidently doesn't like cartoons. But if all of these channels were doing wonderfully, I don't think there would be the will from the top to make these changes. I think the move to make so many channels more generic is a bad one, but I can see network execs wanting to broaden or change a channel's focus if it's not performing to expectations. And just from what I've seen here, the SciFi Channel has become associated with a huge library of B-movies featuring the monster of the week and not a lot of top quality television. So maybe a rebranding was in order.

The really frustrating thing is not so much that SciFi is looking to expand and rebrand, but that SciFi is expanding and rebranding in the dumbest and least effective way possible. If they had decided they wanted to be the Paint Channel or the Fluffy Kitten Channel or the Sandwiches Channel, fine, whatever. At least it's a direction. But what it the "SyFy" Channel? What does "SyFy" mean? It means "We're still the same channel in some way, because our name is pronounced exactly the same way, but our name no longer means "science fiction," or anything else for that matter. So our programming could be anything. You don't know. *We* don't know, in all likelihood." And on top of that, is "SciFi" really all that limiting? I'm not the best person to ask, but the definition of "science fiction" can be pretty broad and, as annual conventions of many kinds show, fans of science fiction are a numerous lot willing to shell out money to experience good science fiction.

But let's put that aside for a minute, give the benefit of the doubt, and say that yes, the SciFi Channel was in serious need of rebranding to help shed its image a the place for modern B-grade monster flicks and not much else. I'm not marketing exec, but I still came up with a name and concept for the channel in the time it took me to shower this morning that I think is way better than "SyFy." How about "If"? Fans of the SciFi Channel with recognize it as part of the channel's marketing campaign. Their station IDs start with the word "if" which then becomes the middle of the word "SciFi" as a goldfish jumps out of its bowl and flies away or something. So people who already know and like the channel will feel like there's still a connection. "If" would not be limited to science fiction, but it wouldn't be without definition either. "If" would be the place for science fiction, fantasy, horror, superheroes, and all manner of related genres that deal with the questions starting "What if?" The best parts of the SciFi Channel could easily be carried over while the failing aspects are replaced with new material. And that impressive library of lame monster movies? Embrace the cheese. Make it a strength. Run them in blocks as "The Saturday Night Creature Feature" or something. Hire the MST3K alums to at least do framing segments mocking the goofiness of the film before and after each commercial break, if not outright riff over the whole movie. (On a related note, if Cinematic Titanic Live comes to a venue near you, GO SEE IT!) And yes, put MST3K back on the air. Show classic science fiction and fantasy shows and movies that people have loved for ages, maybe with new interviews or documentaries to bring in the people who already have it on DVD.

I think it could work. It seems like a better option than "SyFy" anyway.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 11:06:02 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

Sorry for the double post.

Litwolf> " So stupid! SciFi channel has been good for very few things, in my opinion: Tin Man, Ghost Hunters, and Eureka (that last one is just for my mother ^_^)."

What about when they still showed Mystery Science Theater 3000? God, I miss that show. I have to resort to DVD boxsets and YouTube to see ANY of it nowadays.

Sci-Fi/SyFy/what the *beep* ever they are now should bring the MST3K reruns back. I'd be a happy camper if they did.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 8:36:12 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

Demonskrye> "Like so many cable channels these days, they seem to be trying to move away from filling a concrete niche to being the "Shows You'll Like" channel, a channel which has no real identity or common theme beyond a bunch of shows network execs think will sell."

Please tell me there's at least one or two channels that AREN'T interested in doing that. Having a network that can and will stay permanently consistent with their overall programming schematics would be a true breath of fresh air. Not to mention a relaxation to curb my annoyance at those 'hip and cool' stations.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 8:27:20 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

Othello> Lex basically has small slits between his wings and his body, just big enough for his belt and the part of his loincloth that cover his sides to fit through. The rest of his wings - above and below - are connected to his body. The slits aren't naturally occurring; gargoyles with wing structures like Lex's have their wings pierced so that they can wear loincloths or some similar item of clothing. I think there are some unnamed background gargoyles with wing structures similar to Lex's but you'd have to ask someone who keeps more of an eye on those things than I do.

The current theory about the aquatic looking gargoyle is that he has an ancestor from the Loch Ness clan, either a biological parent or something a little further back. So he'd still be a child of the Wyvern Clan and "Scottish stock" to boot. None of this has been confirmed at since it's an idea, we can't ask Greg about it.

"SyFy"> From the little I've read here and there and my own theories, I think the name change is an extremely misguided attempt for the channel to expand their purview without losing what brand identity they've developed. The theory seems to be that they'll still be recognized because it's pronounced exactly the same way, but because it's now "SyFy," their programming is no longer limited to science fiction. Hence my reference to them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Like so many cable channels these days, they seem to be trying to move away from filling a concrete niche to being the "Shows You'll Like" channel, a channel which has no real identity or common theme beyond a bunch of shows network execs think will sell. I wouldn't mind so much if they wanted to be the Nerd Channel or the Smart Channel or whatever if they had just defined what it is they *are* going to be instead of just saying "We're not just about SciFi anymore" and crafted a real new name based around that.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 8:17:02 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

@ Patrick: Don't make fun of that. If you'll ever be in the posession of a garden, you'll KNOW what trouble giant mole rats REALLY are.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 7:12:51 am EDT from 84.191.213.111

Demonskrye> " TNN made a rather reasonable name change from "something too easily confused with TNT" to "Spike.""

Wait, TNN?

Oops. My bad.

But, yeah, that was what I'd been referring to.

Patrick> "Where in the heck did they come up with "SyFy" and what's the motivation for changing it now? Every geek in the world knows what "SciFi" means. I swear, this craze of spelling things weird is "4 teh burdz." :P"

Agreed. I'm guessing the 'SyFy' thing was just their attempt at being 'clever'.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 7:11:49 am EDT from 99.22.69.82

"Braveheart" has also been shown on The History Channel, which is even more wrong.

Those naked mole rats can be big trouble. They'll steal your nachos when you're not looking!
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 6:59:15 am EDT from 173.88.144.38

In the Gathering Part one when they arrive at the gates you see an aquatic looking gargoyle.If they're from the wyvern clans scottish stock,How come this one looks non scottish? What are or what do you think the other two gargoyle beasts names are,ones a male,the other a female.
Othello
Gatgfan
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 1:36:37 am EDT from 70.162.249.241

Spen> So Lexingtons wings have a small opening from wing to body or something,his wings are'nt completely connected from top to bottom. What other gargoyles have wings like Lex's?
Othello
Gatgfan
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 1:23:57 am EDT from 70.162.249.241

Farscape was great.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Mar 31, 2009 12:28:17 am EDT from 75.65.27.129

I had no idea what you guys were talking about at first, with this SyFy stuff. I cant believe they are actually doing that! So stupid! SciFi channel has been good for very few things, in my opinion: Tin Man, Ghost Hunters, and Eureka (that last one is just for my mother ^_^). Oh, and their original movies cheer me up when Im feeling down because I watch them and laugh and laugh, thining "Wow! I could write better stuff than this crap!"

What is the point in this name change? Seriously?
Litwolf
<Be happy for me and for all who fly free.> - Tobias of Animorphs
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:14:49 pm EDT from 209.243.38.9

It was hard for me to take Sci Fi seriously BEFORE the name change. But then again, every other week they were releasing original movies which starred Treat Williams (usually) AND tried to paint things like rainbows or naked mole rats in a threatening light. Just take something that normally isn't big, make it big, and then you apparently have science fiction.

And then one time they showed Braveheart, for some reason. Though Mel Gibson took so many liberties with the actual historical figure of William Wallace that it might as well have been Sci Fi.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Free will... it's like butterfly wings. Once touched, they never get off the ground. No, I merely set the stage. You pull your own strings." -John Milton ("The Devil's Advocate")
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:19:54 pm EDT from 71.62.136.51

Where in the heck did they come up with "SyFy" and what's the motivation for changing it now? Every geek in the world knows what "SciFi" means. I swear, this craze of spelling things weird is "4 teh burdz." :P
Patrick - [<-- Gathering 2009]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:58:58 pm EDT from 173.88.144.38

I like Wolverine and the X-men, it's Brilliant. The 1st season has already been shown over here in the UK. Anyone seen the Direct to video Hulk Vs Wolverine and yet. I couldn't beleive how violent it was but it was really good. I still need to watch Hulk vs Thor yet
VickyUK - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:40:31 pm EDT from 205.188.116.10

@ Dan: Why ya asking? XD

I don't mean the english synch. I meant the re-synched version which sounded more like a bad anime synch.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:25:57 pm EDT from 84.191.192.232

Brook> Well, judgig by your signature, it doesn't matter what I say if it contradicts what Rebel says. :) But my personal feeling is that "Evolution" is the best of the X-Men animated series, so far. The 90s Fox cartoon ends up being a bit of a mess. There are some good voice performances, but it tries to take on too much, it seldom had the freedom to effectively retell the stories from the comics it chose to do, and the animation was frequently awful thanks in part to overly complex designs. "Evolution" had its weak points and took a little while to find its footing, but when it got good, it got really good. I was initially a little wary of the idea of making the cast all school-aged and in a public school to boot, but it actually led to some good storylines and really paid off later in the series. "Wolverine and the X-Men" is shaping up to be pretty good and I like how many characters from the mutant mythos they're fitting in without the stories feeling crammed with cameos. But it hasn't really bowled me over yet and it's really just too early for me to judge whether it will be the next great X-Men show, or merely a good one.

And of course, "Pryde of the X-Men" is always worth a watch, if you can dig it up.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
"How ya doin? Wanna piece of fruit?"
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:37:42 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Brook: Hello, brook, i'm not trying to be rude or anything, just a regular question. But your a male right?
Dan - [vodocius at yahoo dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:27:24 pm EDT from 64.12.117.67

@ Rebel: Ah, thx. :) At least this way I know that X:E is good. :)

When I was a kid, I couldn't take the X-MEN cartoon, because the synching was THAT bad. Basically, everybody sounded either agressive or hysteric, especially Jubilee.
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:26:05 pm EDT from 84.191.192.232

Best X-men Cartoon > Sorry, but Evolution is the only one I've really made an effort to watch. So, while I can attest that Evolution is really good; I can't compare it to the rest of the X-men cartoons since I haven't watched enough episodes of the others.
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:22:06 pm EDT from 198.175.205.251

A little question (possibly @ Rebel): Which X-MEN cartoon is the best? The one from 92, EVOLUTION or WOLVERINE & THE X-MEN??
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:45:01 pm EDT from 84.191.192.232

Gorebash> The difference between this and YouTube is that content comes from the original source (e.g. no user-contributed content).

Actually Marvel and Funimation have their own accounts on YouTube. Funimation uploads anime, while Marvel mostly give info on their products (Though they have been uploading X-Men Evolution).
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:12:04 pm EDT from 72.87.7.89

Questionable? Your loss. Worked fine for me while in Japan. If you got a friend stateside, you can try a Slingbox.
Roy
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:02:36 pm EDT from 64.183.15.38

Uhm, I ran "Watching Hulu outside US" in google and altavista got four and three hits respectively, all of which looked questionable and not in the least helpful.

I'm also not particular fond of having to register with such services and my browser neither knows Flash nor am I keen on teaching it Flash.
Anonymouse
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:37:50 pm EDT from 89.246.161.94

Run "Watching Hulu outside US" in a search. It's easy.

For region coded DVDs, buy a region-free DVD player, run a second DVD drive on your computer(region coded for whatever country DVD you plan to watch) or back up your DVDs and remove the region coding while you're at it.
Roy
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:16:16 pm EDT from 64.183.15.38

@ Demonskrye: That Lee statement is HILLARIOUS. Cash in on his name. *god*

@ Gore: "Is this the future of television? Seems like a good possibility. I'd love to see the day when we have networks and production companies post their entire archive of shows online. So fans of shows no longer available on television would still be able to watch old episodes."

My dream for years.
The same goes with films, especially really, really old films. There are always these hungarian arthouse films from the 1960s you just find nowhere...

But Anonymous has pretty much hit the nail on the head: HULU is unavailable in the rest of the world, so as a non american, I still have to wait for the real deal. :(
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:57:19 pm EDT from 84.191.192.232

Gorebash - I was initially skeptical of Hulu but it might have a bright future. The key advantage it has over TV and DVDs is a captive audience: it can force people to watch the interstitial ads rendering Tivo's biggest advantage useless. And although there's no initial charge like with DVDs, ads forced for each subsequent viewing ensuring a perpetual revenue stream.

I personally prefer my Blu-ray discs and HD Tivo (i.e. signal quality over convenience), but I think I'm in the minority. Companies that effectively monetize internet distribution will survive the long haul.

Anonymouse - That sucks. Hopefully they'll get better as online distribution gets more popular.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:41:24 pm EDT from 128.101.32.234

King Cobra> "Hell, it worked for MTV... I mean, Spike TV."

Are you referring to the lawsuit that sprung up around the "Spike TV" name? Because I think that's a somewhat different scenario. TNN made a rather reasonable name change from "something too easily confused with TNT" to "Spike." Not tremendously controversial and it probably would have netted the network only modest media attention had it not been for filmmaker Spike Lee filing a lawsuit claiming that the name change was an attempt to cash in on his popularity, a rather transparently desperate and ultimately ill-fated attempt on Lee's part to make himself relevant again. The suit was ultimately settled due in some part to the son of Spike Jones raising concerns that Lee would raise a similar stink if Spike Jones Jr. went forward with projects using his father's name. Lee eventually admitted that he didn't really believe that Spike TV was trying to capitalize on his fame and was made into something of a laughingstock, while Spike the TV channel got some free publicity and largely came out of the whole mess smelling like roses. So where the "SciFi" to "SyFy" thing is a channel trying to gain some publicity through a minimal name change that could potentially dilute its focus and brand identity, "TNN" to "Spike" was a channel making a perfectly reasonable name change and establishing a target audience (whether it was successful or not is a nother issue) and getting dragged into a controversy that ultimately came out favorably for the channel.

Ghostbusters Fans> If anyone here is a fan of "The Real Ghostbusters" or is interested in checking the series out but found the nearly $200 price tag on the Time Life "firehouse" box set scarier than any ghost, you'll be happy to know that Time Life s now releasing more wallet-friendly single season sets. 30 episodes plus extras for around $22 on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Ghostbusters-Vol-DVD/product-reviews/B001N6FPQY/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:30:37 pm EDT from 146.115.115.33

Though in that scenario generally "users" means people from the USA.

DVDs I can import with little hazzle. Online content quite often throws the "Content isn't available for your region" response, which is more difficult to get around than the stupid region code on DVDs.
Anonymouse
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:05:59 pm EDT from 89.246.161.94

Demonskrye> "I think the "SyFy" Channel is one of the dumbest attempts at rebranding I've ever seen, a true attempt to have their cake and eat it too. On the other hand, though, I've seen more discussion about the channel since they pulled this stunt than I have in quite a while, so at the very least, they've got people talking about it. So maybe if they can back up the name change with something more interesting than more useless unrelated reality shows or another batch of below-B monster flicks, this could turn out well for them. But the name would still be dumb."

I agree about (Ugh) SyFy.

Not so much about the monster flicks, but then that's just because I'm a major horror fan.

And it's a given that people are talking about it. Stuff that tends to be at least mildly controversial gets a lot of attention. My gut opinion? It's a deliberate attempt by the network to try and grab more viewers by changing the name.

Hell, it worked for MTV... I mean, Spike TV.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:02:28 pm EDT from 99.22.67.227

Looks like Disney and Hulu are in talks to bring some ABC shows to Hulu.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090328/media_nm/us_disney_hulu

Is this the future of television? Seems like a good possibility. I'd love to see the day when we have networks and production companies post their entire archive of shows online. So fans of shows no longer available on television would still be able to watch old episodes.

I know the trend has been to push these to DVDs and catch some money from such sales, but if you lumped them all together into a single online product then the heavily-watched shows might help mitigate the costs of digitizing and storing less-popular shows.

Users to these sites could then play programming director and run their own "channel". Maybe even offer incentives for those "channels" that prove popular (although that will just inspire copycat channels).

The difference between this and YouTube is that content comes from the original source (e.g. no user-contributed content). Hollywood keeps control of its content, users can still mix and mash and throughout it all you can stick in commercials and ads.

Anyone got a few billion in venture capital?
Gorebash
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:56:14 am EDT from 207.206.236.230

Brook> Now, now. Let's be fair and realistic. I'd already be more inclined to give "Monkey Trauma Center" a shot than quite a few of the real shows on TV today. :)

King Cobra> I had heard rumors that head of CN (or possibly someone higher up) outright hates the name of the channel. (No, I don't know how he got this job.) That would seem to indicate not so much a bias against anime in particular as one against animation in general, or at least the "limiting" nature of the network's name. I'm hesitant to say that "more anime" is the entire solution. Certain anime still pulls in ratings - though not Pokemon, which CN seems to keep running in show and movie form out of...contractual obligation? nostalgia for the days when it was big? I don't know - but we're past the days when any network can just cough up any old anime and have it do well just by virtue of being an anime. I like (some) anime fine, but I think what's really the key is more diversity. It's possible to maintain an all-animation lineup and still appeal to a wide variety of demographics. And yes,I do think that should include people who like anime.

I think the "SyFy" Channel is one of the dumbest attempts at rebranding I've ever seen, a true attempt to have their cake and eat it too. On the other hand, though, I've seen more discussion about the channel since they pulled this stunt than I have in quite a while, so at the very least, they've got people talking about it. So maybe if they can back up the name change with something more interesting than more useless unrelated reality shows or another batch of below-B monster flicks, this could turn out well for them. But the name would still be dumb.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:46:18 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

Landon Thomas> "And while Cartoon Network and Disney XD compete over sports franchises, CN is moving to reality TV: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001648.html?categoryid=1614&cs=1 Sadly it might be a harbinger of where the kids TV industry is headed (as if the sitcoms weren't bad enough)."

*sighs*

Just great. That's all they (and, in hindsight, we) need.

I can see them eventually changing the name (like the Sci-Fi channel is doing. SyFy? Gimme a break.) if they keep following the path they've set for themselves.

What CN needs is more anime, though I doubt they'll get more. I heard the company president (somebody really needs to fire him) is horribly biased against anime. Big ratings grabbers like DBZ or Naruto... THAT'S the kind of programming CN needs to have. And should have.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra582 at gmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:11 am EDT from 99.22.67.227

Demonskrye: "My husband and I have been talking about this lately and unfortunately, it seems like more and more cable channels are ditching the identities they've carved out for themselves in favor of chasing current fads, cheaper production costs, and whatever other networks are doing."

This trend goes a while back.

I grew up with MTV as something new and exciting. It was the first american channel to hit europe and braught pop-culture into my childhood.

It was new and exiting, and damn, did that music rock. I remember seeing Kurt Cobain on MTV and thinking "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT GUY DOING", a few years later it was Brian Molko, and I was unable to tell if the person rocking so hard was a man or a woman. XD

I used to work for MTV some years ago as a runner, and it really was a messy job. There were 2 shows on music a day, futuring countless stars of such "vehicles" as American Idol and B-stars of various couleur.
The rest were re-runs of NEXT and that kinda stuff. Dating gams. *ugh*

Just last week I was looking through the TV programm, and Oscar winning films (with Oscar, I mean mainstraem dramas, who are actually that successful they even win such a trophy !!!) were shown at 1 in the morning, whilst the slots from 8 to 12 were occupie with reality and gameshows.

TV is goig down further and further. Nxt 10 years will be like the programms the Simpsons watch. :(
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:51:54 am EDT from 84.191.192.232

Landon> My husband and I have been talking about this lately and unfortunately, it seems like more and more cable channels are ditching the identities they've carved out for themselves in favor of chasing current fads, cheaper production costs, and whatever other networks are doing. Cartoon Network in particular seems to be trying to kick the "cartoon" part of its name to the curb, shoving live action shows and movies into their lineup regardless of whether they have even the most tenuous of connections to cartoons. Reality shows seem to have hit the perfect trifecta of being popular, relatively cheap to produce (due to the general lack of writers and big stars), and strike-proof (see previous), so pretty much everyone is looking to have one of their own. Perhaps some of you are too young to remember when MTV and VH1 used to have something to do with music rather than being the dumb reality show channels. My husband and I can't get our "Star Trek: TOS" fix from TV Land anymore without having to sit through plugs for "High School Reunion" and "The Cougar." (My satisfaction at the fact that there's finally a reality show about a woman being pursued by a group of men is vastly outweighed by my feeling that the whole "finding love through reality TV" genre is particularly revolting and should die immediately if not sooner.) I can understand some of CN's live action choices up to this point, even if what I've seen of the Ben 10 live action movies looks like a college student's sophomore year film project, but stuff like "Ace Ventura Jr." has me mystified. (Because today's kids just love that fifteen year old Jim Carrey vehicle?)

My hope is that kids will either pan the influx of live-action and reality shows and stick with animation, or that they'll quickly tire of the large amount of extremely similar programming and be more than ready for the unique and imaginative content that animation can often (though not always) provide.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:27:38 am EDT from 146.115.115.33

@ Supermorff: No no, the orriginal legend of Perceval.

Apparently, a spanish king (or count or duke or whatever it was) wanted to have a propaganda piece written on him. As you might imagine, propaganda was a mess even bigger back then.
So, after some time and some mouthbymouh, the story made its path to france, where it was altered to french language, names included.

But the version was unfinished, at around 9000 verses. Various writers tried to complete it, but it was first on Eschenbach to write the version most people know today.

Personally, I stick to Eschenbachs version. It is readable in its orriginal verse-form still and includes many interresting characters and twists.

It is a bit as with the Faustian story, which was a play long before Goethe and Marlowe made it into the epic works we know today.

@ Algnernon: I forgot to mention: did you ever check the Nibelungen verses? Pretty epic stuff, but fun... well, if you're OK with all the violence taking place. ;)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:17:31 am EDT from 84.191.192.232

Vic Cook is directing a feature: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001831.html?categoryid=19&cs=1 Depending on the timing, it seems unlikely to me that he'll be back for season 3, if/when it's approved.

And while Cartoon Network and Disney XD compete over sports franchises, CN is moving to reality TV: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001648.html?categoryid=1614&cs=1 Sadly it might be a harbinger of where the kids TV industry is headed (as if the sitcoms weren't bad enough).
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter feed]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:50:39 am EDT from 216.250.163.157

Brook> Regarding last week's (yesterday's) comments, do you mean Eschenbach's Parzival was a propaganda piece for a Spanish king? That is pretty interesting, considering his use of Moor characters and the extensive role that the Moorish people played in Spain's history. Cool.

Greg did mention that Faust exists in the Gargoyles universe, but there's nothing about the role he might play: http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=5569
Supermorff
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:46:14 am EDT from 62.25.109.195

"It's Quincy Hemings, not Quincy Jones."

*Argh*
Thanks. :)
Brook
I agree with Rebel on EVERYTHING she says!!
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:49:20 am EDT from 84.191.192.232

10th!
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:09:53 am EDT from 75.65.27.129

*plants a flag* Ninth.
Lynati
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:56:02 am EDT from 96.227.130.238

8th
VickyUK - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:46:11 am EDT from 205.188.116.10

I believe the GFW is down again.

Othello : I would surmise that the Mutates shoot electricity because of the electric eel DNA Sevarius mixed in. Their tails dissapeared as the mutation progressed. (ie: after they were re-desinged.)

Regarding Lexington, his wings are pierced.
Spen
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:33:16 am EDT from 66.43.205.110

Sixth in the name of lurking.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"I hide in plain sight. The demons do it all the time." - John Castaway, 'Estranged'
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:35:42 am EDT from 70.237.215.9

Fifth! Whats with the laybrinth clan shooting lightning from their hands.Is that a side effect to their transformation?Also what happened to their tails? One thing left how did lexington (and if theres any others like him) put on his shorts or cloth or whatever its called on?
Othello
Gatgfan
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:55:13 am EDT from 70.162.249.241

Fourth!

I wonder if any of the gargoyles suffer from PTSD.
Michael Ejercito - [mejercit at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:05:13 am EDT from 75.142.121.139

(3rd)Third then!
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:55:43 am EDT from 69.54.209.22

(2nd)Second, I hope!
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:55:00 am EDT from 69.54.209.22

Second!
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Now, now... Language.
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:54:28 am EDT from 68.55.57.46

First!
Spen
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
posted @ Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:12 am EDT from 66.43.205.110