A Station Eight Fan Web Site


The Phoenix Gate

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending December 21, 2009

Index : Hide Images

Matt> Glad you shared, that's hysterical!

Over the past year I've been slowly introducing my boyfriend Greg to Gargoyles. We watched a few more episodes today (we are almost at the end of the World Tour). Anyway, when watching an episode today (I think it was 'Cloud Father'), Greg said to me, "Bronx needs some Red Bull." I gave him a puzzled look and he shrugged and said, "It gives you wings." Haha. Thought I'd share that one with you guys.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"For science, which, as my associate Fang indicated, must move ever forward. Plus there's the money... and I do love the drama!" -Sevarius, 'Louse'

And people thought the Avalon tour was long. 40 years is a long time.

I liked the concept of the Phoenix controlling things. When I saw the Phoenix in the comic book it just brought back memories of the Phoenix in Final Fantasy games. Very cool!

Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

Holy shit you all need a life...

I might add that I liked the notion (a surprise notion, since we didn't know about it until "Clan-Building Volume Two" came out) of the Phoenix itself, rather than the Phoenix Gate, being responsible for Brooklyn's TimeDancing.

I remember that when Greg Weisman first revealed the premise of "TimeDancer", a lot of us wondered how it was that Brooklyn was unable to control the Phoenix Gate, leaving him helplessly bouncing about the time-stream for forty years of his life. The most common speculation was that the Gate had been damaged by Goliath throwing it away in "Future Tense" (the notion that TGS used). Then Greg revealed that Brooklyn never actually touches the Gate in his TimeDancing; it always bears him away before he can grab it. That made more sense, but it still seemed odd that in all the forty years' worth of encounters with it, Brooklyn never managed to grab the Gate (though he probably spent much of those forty years remaining in specific places for several years, such as feudal Japan or the futuristic world of "Gargoyles 2198").

But the story we finally got in "Clan-Building Volume Two" gave the best answer of all. Instead of the Gate transporting Brooklyn through time, it's the Phoenix itself that rose up from the Gate's remains. The Phoenix isn't a talisman to be controlled but a sentient being with its own purposes, something that Brooklyn can't command. So Brooklyn has to wait until the Phoenix is ready to send him back to Manhattan in 1997. And his TimeDancing has more of a sense of purpose about it; it's no longer a time-traveling talisman on the fritz that's sending him on it, but a mysterious fiery bird, suggesting that Brooklyn's adventures on the past and future are things that are supposed to happen, rather than mere flukes. I think that this concept strengthened the story considerably (and gave a dramatic image of the Phoenix roaring out of the Gate's fragments, to boot).

Todd Jensen

Anthrokid> Keep in mind that in those examples Goliath and Demona are directing the Gate with their own minds. Brooklyn was not controlling the Gate, the Phoenix had all the control itself.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"For science, which, as my associate Fang indicated, must move ever forward. Plus there's the money... and I do love the drama!" -Sevarius, 'Louse'

Question, [SPOILER] In the comic "Phoenix", Angela states that when Brooklyn disappears, that if he's gone for forty seconds it could be the amount of time in the gate as a result to forty years. Why is it that in the TV show when the phoenix is used that the users return. Examples, Demona and Goliath both return during "Vows", and Goliath returns during "MIA", is that why it's important to say the incantation before the phoenix is used? [/SPOILER]
gargoyles forever!

When I was at Left Bank Books today, I noticed a copy of the "Bad Guys" trade paperback in the graphic novels section. (Appropriately enough, it was on the same shelf with a few graphic novel adaptations of Shakespeare's plays - appropriately, in light of Falstaff and his crew having namesake counterparts in the last two chapters of "Bad Guys".) I was delighted to see that there are still copies out there, waiting to be discovered and bought by someone.
Todd Jensen

Todd> That bookactually souunds pretty neat! I am going to have to look for it! :)
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.

@Demonskrye: I think the earliest point at which Goliath realized (or at least mentioned) the possibility of redemption was in "Eye of the Beholder," when he first seriously considered the possibility that Xanatos might be in love.

If not at that point, he certainly recognized the potential of human beings for redemption in "Outfoxed," when he tells Mr. Renard that Vogel ultimately chose to do the right thing, despite Vogel's earlier treachery.

On the other hand, Goliath didn't forgive the Captain for his treachery until "Shadows of the Past," so he probably didn't recognize the potential for his redemption until long after "Awakening."

Nonetheless, he did entrust the eggs to Katharine and the Magus, who both used to hate him. I suppose he must have realized that they could be redeemed, or he would have tried to raise those eggs himself.

As for Goliath and killing, it should be noted that Goliath had qualms about killing even in "Awakening, Part One," when Hakon first attacked Castle Wyvern. While some of Hakon's men were probably killed (since Goliath told him "take what's left of your men"), Goliath would not kill Hakon himself.

Paul - [nampahcfluap at yahoo dot com]

For everyone here who's enjoyed the Shakespearean elements in "Gargoyles", I'd like to recommend a small humorous book I checked out of the library yesterday, "Reduced Shakespeare" by Reed Martin and Austin Tichenor. It's a comical look at Shakespeare and his work, yet shows a strong familiarity with both underneath the jokes. It includes a guide to all of Shakespeare's plays, including what they're best known for, the most famous quotes, and best and worst features; each play also has an essay question (my favorite is the one for "Othello": "Have you ever tricked someone into murdering his spouse? If so, why are you admitting it?"). Each of Shakespeare's plays is given a rating from five bards (the best - Martin and Tichenor placed "Hamlet", "Henry IV Part One", "King Lear", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "Richard III", and "Romeo and Juliet" in this category) to one bard (the worst - Martin and Tichenor placed "Coriolanus", all three "Henry VI" plays, "Henry VIII", "King John", "Timon of Athens", "Troilus and Cressida", and "The Two Noble Kinsmen" in this category).

There's no mention of the Shakespearean adaptations in "Gargoyles", but it's a great read, all the same.

Todd Jensen

Harvest of eyes: I hate to speculate. I always like things straight forward. But its probably simple really simple. Oh well...
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

Titania *whispers*: The Trix Rabbit will eat a bowl and throw up.
Fox smiles.

There, that's the big secret.

Greg Bishansky

Jasmine: If you want to look at it that way. To be honest, I'm kind of glad Greg Weisman has never revealed it. People have imagined so many different possibilities by now that the truth will probably be a letdown.
Harvester of Eyes
Starbuck: "Can I make a suggestion that you won't like?" Apollo: "Do you make any other kind?" ("Battlestar Galactica")

Greg, that kinda sucks! A form of torture. LOL!
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

Sometimes the need for justice, the need for vengence outweights any principles we may have. We are all "human" or Gargoyle or whatever. Our natural inclination is to act on a wrong deed that someone has committed against us or our family.
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

JASMINE> No one knows.
Greg Bishansky

I just rewatched the Gathering. I am sure this has been asked countless times and I know Greg is mum on this issue but what did Titania whispher to Fox?
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Deadly Force" yet. Had Broadway not shown up and confessed that he was the one who actually shot Elisa, I think Goliath would have done something rather violent to Dracon. He is a principled guy, but he's also - for lack of a better word - human. Hurt his family and his desire for revenge threatens to overwhelm his principles.

While I do believe that Goliath is capable of killing and probably did so in the past, I could also see him thinking about it afterwards and, depending on the circumstances, wondering whether there really was no alternative, if he could have rendered his enemy harmless without taking his life. I don't know that he would ever get to the point where he would be completely unwilling to kill when necessary, but I think he probably thought about the implications of it more than his siblings and other clanmates might have.

I think part of the reason that Goliath doesn't kill very often is that Goliath does believe in redemption and people's ability to change. Again, I'm not sure where he got this faith in the potential for redemption. It may be that it is in part an aspect of gargoyle culture, as formerly banished gargoyles who return to the clan are probably believed to have redeemed themselves. So maybe Goliath took this idea and applied it more broadly than most gargoyles did.

Demonskrye - [<---June Foray's Autobiography at The Ink and Pixel Club]

Any warrior can not have any misgivings about killing when necessary. Its a part of what makes them a warrior. However, there is a difference between killing for self defense or to protect others and killing out of vengence or to kill without just cause.

We have seen a few episodes where Goliath was angry and wanted to kill out of vengence. Xanatos, the Hunters when he thought Elisa was dead, Hakon and the Captain after his clan was murdered. Goliath would have killed the Hunter if Elisa had not come back and show she was alive. In a fit of grief and anger even the noblest of warriors is not above killing for vengence. Some may feel like killing out of vengence is wrong but did not people in the bible kill out of vengence? An eye for an eye? What about the death penalty. Is that not a form of vengence? Point being that Goliath would never kill without just cause but during a fit of rage where he wanted vengence, he would not be above it.

Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

I agree with Demonskrye. Remember that even back in the Tenth Century, Goliath was a gargoyle ahead of his time. I think he probably killed more than one humans back then, but only when he had to do it to protect his clan. In the modern age, I think this philosophy has been amplified by Elisa's influence and that the rest of the clan has adopted it as well.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"For science, which, as my associate Fang indicated, must move ever forward. Plus there's the money... and I do love the drama!" -Sevarius, 'Louse'

Jurgan- Goliath is a complex character so I don't think that question can be answered in black and white terms. I think that Goliath in general has a good moral code. It's probably why Hudson chose him as leader. During battles in the dark ages, he probably killed guys running at him with swords. Anyone engaging in a fierce battle would be in a completely different frame of mind than if things were relatively normal. In those times killing invaders was just a fact of life, it was acceptable

I think that Goliath realizes pretty quickly in the modern times that it's unacceptable to go around killing people, he probably realizes it will put his clan in danger. He definitely has a breaking point though, particularly when members of his clan are attacked. Remember in "The Price" when he thought that Macbeth robot killed Hudson, he slammed his fist through its torso. He didn't know it was a robot, he was probably expecting to feel the guy's guts on his arm.



I bought "Ink" on a blind buy earlier this month. Watched it last night. It is my perfect film.

You've likely never heard of it. It was independently produced. It was never really given a run in theaters and it's now available through Blu-ray and DVD.

I would suggest going into it blind as well, if you're the type who can do that. If not there is its wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink_%28film%29) with a bit of a synopsis.

It's not just how good the film is, but how it was made. How, desperate to promote the film, they ripped their own movie, created a torrent of it, and stuck it up on various torrent sites to help spark some word-of-mouth.

Give it a go. I promise you will not be disappointed.


How is "banishment" an option, anyway? What are they gonna do, stick her inside a magic disk and banish her to the Phantom Zone? :P
Patrick - [<-- T-shirt Clearance Sale]
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

My personal view is that Goliath already believed that killing an enemy was a last resort before he woke up in 20th century Manhattan. I just don't think the time between the clan waking up and when he and Demona raided the airship was sufficient for him to change his viewpoint on the subject. Where he got the notion from, I don't know and probably won't know until we get a couple of "Dark Ages" stories that show how Goliath came to be the gargoyle we know. But children's show restriction aside, I can't buy that Goliath went from seeing killing as just part of his life to seeing it as a necessary evil when all other options are exhausted in so short a time and without it ever being mentioned during the first couple of episodes of "Awakening."

Though I can't say for certain, I think it's more likely than not that Goliath did take a life - or several - back in 10th century Scotland. He may not have been as quick to do so as some of his clanmates, but faced with a life or death situation, I think he would have been able to kill. Even before he was the clan leader, he probably would have had a responsibility to protect other gargoyles in his clan. If it came down to killing a Viking or letting a member of his clan die, I don't think he'd hesitate to kill. Heck, I don't think he'd hesitate now if he really thought there was no other choice. If it was a case of either killing Demona or letting her kill Elisa, my guess is that he'd kill Demona. Actually, that's a lousy example since I'm pretty sure the whole clan is now reasonably clear on the fact that Demona can't die permanently. But Goliath still might not enjoy doing it. And I think he'd do the same thing if it was Hyena instead of Demona.

Aside from all the out-of-universe reasons, I think that we don't see Goliath kill anyone firstly because he is a principled guy and secondly because he doesn't get into many situations where he feels he has to kill to prevent himself or his clanmates from being killed. Whether it's through strength, skill, or smarts, Goliath can and eventually does neutralize whatever threat comes his way without having to use lethal force. It'll be interesting to see whether he's ever pushed past that point or if, as has nearly happened more than once before, his anger will get the better of him and cause him to kill out of rage and likely regret his actions later.

Demonskrye - [<---June Foray's Autobiography at The Ink and Pixel Club]

JURGAN> "I have seen the show, Greg. I'm referring to The Reckoning- they capture Demona after fighting her in that weird mechanical suit, and they talk about imprisonment, banishment, and "the alternative." Eventually, they decide to lock her up in the Labyrinth."

Are you sure you're remembering that right? I'm fairly certain Golaith's line about the "alternitive" was from "Long Way to Morning" back when Golaith's feelings about Demona were still unresolved, and by the time of the Reckoning they already knew about the Weird Sisters' spell so they couldn't have killed her even if they wanted to.

You also have to keep in mind that whatever else she may be, Demona's still family. She's still the mother of Golaith's child as well as Hudson's rookery daughter, so killing her is a lot more emotionally complex an issue then whacking some random bad guy like Dracon or Sevarius.

"I thought I was clear that I just suggested that as a possible explanation, only to dismiss it as not making sense in context."

I might have missed it but I don't think it follows unless you can show that most non Manhattan gargs follow a stict sactity of life morality. As leader of the Manhattan Clan Golaith is going to act as a moral compass for his family particularly younger members like the trio and Angela. So it's no suprise that they share his beliefs.


Actually, I take it back- it's possible I'm misremembering the quote. Maybe it was from Long Way... But the fact remains that, in The Reckoning, no one considers killing Demona when they have the chance. And it's not just Goliath- he's the leader, but none of the others in the Manhattan Clan are killing, either. Maybe it was practicality at first, but it seems to be a commitment they've all made by the end.
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]

"Well, of course he's not ready to consider killing Demona in "Long Way to Morning" (not "The Reckoning"), but I think the reasons are very obvious there."

I have seen the show, Greg. I'm referring to The Reckoning- they capture Demona after fighting her in that weird mechanical suit, and they talk about imprisonment, banishment, and "the alternative." Eventually, they decide to lock her up in the Labyrinth.

"I disagree, keep in mind most of the stuff you cited come directly from Golaith. So I think it's more to do with his own personal convictions about the sanctity of life then any sort of innate superiority of the gargoyle race."

I thought I was clear that I just suggested that as a possible explanation, only to dismiss it as not making sense in context. And yeah, I'm told the elves aren't as noble in The Silmarillion, but I've never read that.

Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]

Sorry for the double post, but:

ALGERNON - Good point about Tolkien's Elves, though in the specific example you cite, helping Sauron forge the Rings, they seem to have been more dupes (Sauron was pretending to be a good guy when he approached them) than anything else. Tolkien once stated, however, that he did see them as in the wrong when they helped him make the Rings of Power, though, in a different way; their reason for making the Rings was to use them to keep Middle-earth as it was, without changing, in almost a state of frozen perfection. But they didn't understand that Middle-earth had to change, and that eventually humans had to succeed the Elves.

If you've read "The Silmarillion", there are even more dramatic cases there of Elves going bad - such as the Oath of Feanor, the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, or the treacheries of Celegorm, Caranthir, and Curufin.

Todd Jensen

All that I'll say about the "Goliath Chronicles" discussion is that, whenever the question comes up over whether its episodes should be treated as canon or not, there's one proposition that always makes me shake my head: when someone says that the "Goliath Chronicles" should be canon and that then Greg Weisman or whoever writes new episodes of "Gargoyles" should find some way of returning the situation at the end of "Angels in the Night" to the way it was just after "The Journey" (such as restoring public hatred towards the gargoyles, undoing Castaway's arrest and discrediting, turning Thailog and the Clones back to flesh and blood, etc.).

That strikes me as cheating. If you're going to accept the "Goliath Chronicles" as canon, then you should (I believe) accept the consequences of its episodes and not try frantically undoing them. (And I suspect that the attempts to reverse the events of "The Goliath Chronicles" would probably produce even more far-fetched results than those that were in "The Goliath Chronicles". I've read about how in "X-Men", when the creative team wanted to bring Jean Grey back from the dead, they decided to recon the Phoenix Saga to make the Phoenix not really Jean Grey but a cosmic entity impersonating her, which took a lot of the point out of the original story. Attempts to preserve the "Goliath Chronicles" canonicity but undoing it would probably produce equally dreadful results.)

I think that Goliath would have had another reason to say "I will not discuss the alternative" when talking about what to do with Demona in "Long Way Till Morning". Remember, back then he didn't realize (not until "Vows") that he and Demona would never be a couple again. He was probably still longing for her (if with conflicting emotions over his new-found feelings towards Elisa), and might have hoped still that he could turn her aside from her dark path and they could be mates once more. And of course, some episodes later, in "Vows", he finally has to face the truth.

Todd Jensen

JURGEN> "However, that makes me uncomfortable because it suggests that gargoyles are simply "better" than humans. We've already got a species that manages to live as perfect socialists, which would be a great way to live if only human greed didn't get in the way. Saying that they also place a greater value on life than humans starts to edge into the realm of an idealized species. They're not Tolkien's elves, who could pee in a bottle and sell it as a healing potion. One of the biggest themes was that everyone has good points and bad points- "there is good and evil in all of us." So, while this explanation makes some sense, it undercuts a major theme of the story."

I disagree, keep in mind most of the stuff you cited come directly from Golaith. So I think it's more to do with his own personal convictions about the sanctity of life then any sort of innate superiority of the gargoyle race.

By contrast we have Demona whose made at least one attempt to wipe out the entire human race, The entire population of New York as well as multiple attempts on Elisa's life. Plus there were all the helpless humans she slaughtered onscreen in City of Stone for no apparent reason other then for giggles. Oh and all the times she's tried to murder members of her own family.

Then there's Thailog, has yet to racked up an onscreen* body count, but clearly has no hang-ups about threatening others to get what he wants.

Then there's Coldsteel who seemed to be looking forward to practising "the joys of dismemberment" on his own rookery father.

And even Golaith himself is not above temptation as seen in Hunter's Moon.

And as an aside, Tolkien's Elves were not quite the sinless angels hacks like Christopher Paolini imagine then to be. Remember they're the ones who helped Sauron forge the Rings of Power in the first place. Tolkien's elves could be arrogant SoBs and it often came back to bite them in the ass. Remember LoTR was mostly narrated from the POV of the naive and rather sheltered hobbits who of course would be dazzled by the elves shininess.

*I know Greg has said that Thailog killed the mercenaries from Double Jeopardy but since it's only CiT I didn't count it.


JURGAN> Well, of course he's not ready to consider killing Demona in "Long Way to Morning" (not "The Reckoning"), but I think the reasons are very obvious there.

As for "City of Stone", he did briefly consider killing Demona at one point. As for "every life is precious", I don't see that as a "I won't kill" philosophy like the one Batman has, it's a true statement, but if he must do it, he will. And I'm sure he's killed in battle, plenty of times in the Dark Ages.

Greg Bishansky

I forgot to mention the airship, but I think it fits in with what I've said. Goliath accepted the necessity of killing in battle, but only as a last resort. That's near the beginning of the series, though. In City of Stone, Goliath explicitly states that every life is precious, and killing anyone, even Demona, would be wrong. In The Reckoning, he says he wouldn't even consider "the alternative-" i.e., killing her. It seems like a change occurs somewhere, and CoS is the pivotal moment.
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]

I think Kerry hit the nail right on the head.

As for the battle with the Vikings at Wyvern, due to it being an afternoon, Disney cartoon, I choose to think Greg and the crew were selective in what they showed us.

Besides, in "Phoenix" we see Constantine's soldiers being killed by gargoyles left and right. And I don't think that's just because Demona was in charge.

Greg Bishansky

There is an aspect of this that you didn't touch on... when Goliath and Demona stormed the airship. She was prepared to kill anyone who saw them, even those who'd slipped into harmless unconsciousness. Goliath opposed her, stating, in effect, that killing in battle was acceptable, but what she wanted to do was wrong. I'm not sure that Goliath or any of the other Manhattan gargoyles has changed that particular belief.

I do think that it's possible that Goliath and the others saw (or were informed) that if they went around leaving bodies everywhere from "protecting" their territory, it would be trouble for themselves and for Elisa. They have no desire for that, so they decide to leave human criminals in the hands of human justice.

Kerry (Kth) Boyd

RIP Roy E Disney
VickyUK - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]

Ouch, those paragraphs didn't come out well. Sorry- I forgot how the formatting works here (no indenting with tab).
Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]

So, there's a topic I've been kicking around for a while in regards to gargoyle culture. Thought I'd bring it up and see where it led. Please continue whatever else you're discussing as well, though.
One of the ideas we've talked about a lot with gargoyles is syncretism- the idea that, when two cultures meet, they form a third culture, with elements of both but still a distinct entity. One such development was the gargoyles' change from medieval warriors to superheroes. Specifically, Goliath took them from protecting "the castle" to protecting an island, but I always found it interesting that Greg said the "island" aspect was important. Goliath could see stopping at natural boundaries, which is still a somewhat medieval idea, while stopping at a county line would be harder to fathom. There's another modern idea that the gargoyles have, and I'm trying to figure out where it came from. I'm referring to the notion that every life is valuable, and one should not kill, even if someone is a dangerous enemy.
Let's get the obvious answers out of the way first. Yes, it's a children's show and they can't show killing. Yes, Greg Weisman personally believes these things and so made them themes of the story. I'm not interested in those out-of-universe explanations, because this world is consistent enough that I think the characters will act based on what makes sense in-universe.
The idea of not killing is distinctly not a medieval concept. Soldiers defending a castle would have no compunctions about killing invaders. The Wyvern battle, though, had fairly little violence- indeed, much of it was played for comic relief. I think it's fair to say that at least some killing happened offscreen (note Goliath's demand that Hakon take "what's left of your men"), but what we don't know is how much the gargoyles were involved in. Goliath does not kill anyone that we know of. He may have done so, but it's hard to imagine it except as a last resort. Hudson might be more likely, but the trio had way too much fun to imagine them killing people. Of course, there's Demona. It's easy to imagine her tearing Hakon apart had Goliath not shown up and thrown him out, but I think we can consider her an exception even then (she was planning to allow the human population to be taken into slavery, after all). Othello didn't have much concern for humans one way or the other, which makes me think he wouldn't hesitate to kill those who endangered his clan. On the whole, though, the gargoyles seemed fairly minimalist in their use of violence.
The first time we see the issue addressed directly in the present is when Goliath contemplates throwing Xanatos off the Eyrie at the end of Awakenings. Elisa is the one who convinces him not to, saying he'd be the same as Demona, but Hudson is more ambivalent. Is it a generational thing? But in Her Brother's Keeper, Lexington throws Jackal or Hyena (can't remember which was first) out a helicopter with no way of knowing (s)he had a parachute. Greg says Lex was thinking as a medieval warrior, not a crime-fighter. Does this mean Lex killed humans during battle back at Wyvern? I guess he did, but if so, why do they eventually decide to stop? Is it Elisa's influence, as it was on Goliath? After all, she represents a kind of protection that never uses more force than necessary.
The one time the issue of lethal vigilantism is broached directly as a major story element is, of course, City of Stone. It's presented as Goliath believing in the sanctity of all life, but being tempted to abandon it in Demona's case. At what point, though, did he take this creed? Was it part of living in the modern day that made him decide to follow the police model? Reawakening was when he declared a new protectorate, but did he also take this opportunity to change his methods? What seems most likely is that, in the modern day, he gradually shifted towards not killing without really thinking about it, but not until CoS did he face the issue directly.
The only other episode I can think of that deals with the lethality issue is Protection. This is a mediocre episode for most people- I find it has generally good characterization but is hampered by an idiot plot (i.e., it wouldn't work except that the characters act like idiots). At the end, Goliath suggests dropping Dracon, but comments that "gargoyle justice is not human justice." I still can't figure out what he meant by that. Is he saying that the only reason they don't kill humans is because they're humans, and they should respect human law? But then, when did gargoyles ever practice capital punishment? We know that the main penalty was banishment, not execution, so why does Goliath suggest execution is "gargoyle justice?" Honestly, that seems like a misstep to me, but I could be missing something.
There is one other possible explanation for all of this, but it's one that makes me uncomfortable. That explanation is that maybe gargoyles naturally place a higher value on individual lives than do humans. This would make some sense based on biology. Humans can have many children in their lives, and in ancient times they did, because there was a good chance that many of those children would die. Gargoyles had no more than three children in a lifetime (excepting the rare occurrence of twins), because they had almost no natural enemies. From an ecological standpoint,populations need to remain stable, and so species evolve so that the birthrate and the deathrate match.So the gargoyles naturally don't expect many violent deaths, which could mean that they see each one as more significant and try to avoid them. However, that makes me uncomfortable because it suggests that gargoyles are simply "better" than humans. We've already got a species that manages to live as perfect socialists, which would be a great way to live if only human greed didn't get in the way. Saying that they also place a greater value on life than humans starts to edge into the realm of an idealized species. They're not Tolkien's elves, who could pee in a bottle and sell it as a healing potion. One of the biggest themes was that everyone has good points and bad points- "there is good and evil in all of us." So, while this explanation makes some sense, it undercuts a major theme of the story.
I don't have a definitive answer to this question, but it's something I wanted to think about. Anyone else want to toss in their $.02?

Jurgan - [jurgan6 at yahoo dot com]

Roy Disney died?!?!?!?!? No no no no no no!!!!! :( :( :(
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.

GREG B.> I'm pretty sure Greg himself has said that Runaways originally started out as a Timedancer pitch before being completely mutated by the TGC crew. Though I agree Runaways in it's eventual form has about as much in common with Timedancer as a penguin does with a velociraptor.

Just talked to a co-worker because he saw the Clan-Building book. He said wow, I remember that show. That was so long ago. That was a really good show. People still remember what a good show it was even a decade later.
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

I have never watched any of TGC with the exception of the Journey. I started to watch Ransom but didn't finish it. Was the series really that bad? Is that the reason Gargoyles went off the air?
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

RIP Roy Disney

Greg B.> Gargoyle dendrophilia is a worthy topic of exploration.

TGC Comparisons> While I don't think comparisons to TGC (concepts here versus concepts there) are necessarily invalid or frivolous (Runaways to Timedancer, Ransom to Trickster Tale, etc.), since I'm sure there are some interesting notions about how they might possibly be related (as an example of Mr. Weisman's springboards gone awry), I don't see the necessity to make such comparisons.

Assuming Goliath's sentience trial occurs at all within the next arc or the arc after, what possible discussion could come from comparing it to the TGC rendition?

"Hey guys, Goliath's trial was so intelligently written here, yeah?"
"Yeah, the TGC one sucked!"

There's the entire comparison discussion summed up into two seconds. Replace it with Ransom to The Gate, Tyrants, and Phoenix. Or whatever common linked stories between Weisman canon and TGC apocrypha. There's simply no way to discuss it without just reiterating TGC was just underwhelming (and that's putting it lightly).

I think The Goliath Chronicles is a fantastic discussion topic in different contexts. I've always been kind of fascinated by the exact thought process that could've went into its development. Why certain ideas we've seen (and not seen) became ideas that were barely related. What the writers, not necessarily familiar with the series, decided to do and why. I think that's extremely interesting and not really in a way that expresses negativity. But then again, I can get pretty fascinated by behind the scenes/creative process info of about ANYTHING (even things I dislike), so eh.

Unfortunately, insights into that creative process are probably impossible to find. The people involved at a deeper level than Mr. Weisman probably can't be tracked down and might not remember much anyway. Mr. Weisman himself has said all that probably needs to be said on his end (and very understandably so, I'd add). So I think about the only really interesting subject you could possibly derive from Goliath Chronicles is pretty much impossible to have because the info to kick start it likely doesn't exist in any tangible or intangible form.

So Goliath Chronicles discussion overall just kind of boils to "Canon did this better." And while that's certainly true (and something of an understatement), it's...boring and stating the obvious.

So I think some of these comparisons have merit...they're just pointless and reveal nothing new.

Harlan Phoenix

R.I.P. Roy E Disney 1930-2009
Leo - [<link]

Algernon> I was more wondering whether Thailog was really Keith David's first time playing a villain in any medium or if it was more his first time playing an all-out "I'm so good at being bad" bad guy, rather than whether Thailog had been his only villain role ever. But yes, I'm aware he's done other since which could have potentially caught the attention of someone at Disney casting. Or maybe they had no idea whether he'd ever voiced a villain before. Maybe someone just heard him narrating a nature documentary and said, "Hey, that's a good voice. We should have him try out for Facilier." Or maybe he just tried out for the part. I really have no idea how it went down.

TGC> I'm kind of with Greg B on this one (assuming you meant "Runaways" and not "Ransom." I had initially written that most TGC episodes were based on ideas Greg had for future stories, but I went back and changed it to "some." I think there are more stories in TGC that are drawn from concepts brought up in the previous seasons of the show than there are stories directly inspired by something Greg was going to do. Off the top of my head, we have "Ransom" being a very different version of the "Alex gets kidnapped" story and "And Justice For All" being a trial of Goliath, which Greg says he was planning to do. Anything else is probably kind of stretching it. I imagine Greg had already intended for Robbins to figure out that Hudson was a gargoyle, but saying that "The Dying of the Light" is therefore based on an idea from Greg is somewhat inaccurate. "Runaways" is really more of a Brooklyn feature episode than anything to do with TimeDancer. I guess you could say that Brooklyn spends time away from the clan in both ideas, but again, I think it's reaching.

Landon> I agree completely, hence my calling Gargoyles "largely" Greg's creation. As you say, I think Greg would always need to be involved because he's the guy who knows what the overall direction of the narrative should be. But if money and availability permitted, I too would love to see some of the regular writers from the TV series take on an issue of a possible future comic here and there.

Demonskrye - [<---June Foray's Autobiography at The Ink and Pixel Club]

I agree that there's no good reason to make TGC canon, but I wouldn't overplay Greg as the only writer that could do a faithful Gargoyles story. If Gargoyles gets to be a regular series again (with a stabler footing and bigger order than the first SLG run), I would love the old gang of Reaves, Chandler, Bates, Marano et al folded back into writing duties with Greg as the editor/grand poobah.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter Feed]

ALGERNON> I think a lot of that gets blown out of proportion by people. At this point, the ideas are so vastly different, you may as well be comparing apples to steam engines.

For example, when the Double Date story finally saw print, people were jumping through hoops to say that's where "Genesis Undone" came from, and I was scratching my head. All they featured in common were the clones.

The Stone of Destiny story definitely has nothing in common with anything in TGC either.

"TimeDancer" and "Ransom" ... all they have in common is Brooklyn being in the story.

Now, if we ever get more specific things, like the trial, then I can see more of a fan debate comparing and contrasting. But for the stories we've gotten thus far, I don't see it.

Greg Bishansky

GREG B> "Sweet Moses, Christ and Muhammed... [bold]NO![/bold]"

Just to play Devil's Advocate though isn't that in a way, exactly what Greg plans on doing? As I understand it, most TGC episodes were based on heavily garbled versions of Greg's ideas, Timedancer became Runaways, The Raven story became Ransom ect.


DEMONSKRYE> Keep in mind Thailog isn't the only villain David has voice acted prior to "The Princess and The Frog". He's also played the Big Man from TSSM of course as well as Despero from the Justice League cartoon. Funnily enough, Despero also happened to be a big muscly purple guy.

<<in fact i think Greg should rewrite all of the Goliath Chronicles excluding the thailog one and make them canon. After all, it's a spin-off and deserves it's place among the other Gargoyles spin-offsha>>

Sweet Moses, Christ and Muhammed... [bold]NO![/bold]

The only stories that deserve to be told in "Gargoyles" are the stories in Greg Weisman's head. Not the ones produced by people with little to no understanding of the show, or its characters. There is a really bad fanfic out there about Brooklyn pleasuring himself by violating a tree that I would see adapted to canon before TGC.

Greg Bishansky
You know, Newbie, it's so interesting — I found I couldn't sleep last night, so, in order to pass the time, I started to make a list of things that annoy me more than you. Anyway, I came up with people who call Wednesdays "hump day" and, of course, all Sandra Bullock movies.

Saw "Princess and the Frog" last night and was very pleased. If anyone here is still in touch with Keith David, please send him my congratulations. He was amazing. Even my husband commented on how great his performance was, and I'm pretty sure my husband does not have a voice crush on Keith David.

H.I.> In the future, I would suggest that you make it clear when you're just speculating. Say something like: "It says on GargWiki that Thailog was created in part to see how Keith David would do playing a villain. So maybe voicing Thailog helped him develop that skill so he could get the role of Dr. Facilier."

I'm not familiar enough with Keith David's live action roles prior to Gargoyles to know if he'd really never played a villain before. But voicing Thailog probably didn't hurt and may have made him more comfortable with playing a villain. I kind of doubt that Disney was influenced by the fact that he had voiced Thailog in particular when casting him for this role. They may have looked at his resume, seen that he voiced characters on a couple of Disney TV shows, and thought "Oh, he's done work for the company; that's a plus." But I really don't think they were looking at the fact that he played a villain who showed up in three episodes on a show that's over a decade old.

Ransom and TGC> Greg does have his own "Alex gets kidnapped" story, though it was pretty different from "Ransom." It was originally going to involve all four main trickster Children of Oberon: Puck, Coyotr, Raven, and Anansi. More recently, Greg has decided that it would feature just Raven and Puck, probably because of the difficulty in explaining why Oberon would let three of his Children leave Avalon.

A couple of the episodes of "The Goliath Chronicles" are loosely based on ideas that Greg had for future episodes and storylines. So some new stories may contain similar concepts. And Greg did include the scene where Robbins reveals that he knows Hudson is a gargoyle from "The Dying of the Light" in the comic as a nod to one of the few highlights of TGC.

TGC is not really a spin-off, not in the same way that Bad Guys, TimeDancer, Pandragon, and the rest are. The spin-offs were all ideas that Greg had for exploring different parts of the Gargoyles universe. TGC is a season of the show that was made without any direct participation from Greg, aside from some initial advising. I don't think Greg should be obligated to retell all of the stories from TGC and I don't think he feels obligated to do so. It's someone else's take on what was in large part his creation.

Demonskrye - [<---June Foray's Autobiography at The Ink and Pixel Club]

You know what I want to see? I want to see the Phoenix Gate take Vinnie somewhere.

Vinnie: "Aw geez, I was just lost in Japan now I dont even know where Im lost at." Maybe it could take him to encounter Brooklyn on his Timedance.

Ok, back to lurking, Im losing my namesake.


Princess & the Frog -- Saw it on Saturday . . . made me a happy panda (sorry, South Park is on) d:

Fox & Alex: I'm now thinking about the original premise for (what would be 'diluted' into) Ransom, which apparently was meant to include several tricksters -- including Coyote, and Raven as the kidnapper (was Coyote too originally in cahoots? I forget). Knowing that Owen is charged with protecting the boy I beleive we'd see a return of Puck chasing after those responsible for kidnapping the kid.

But now I'm wondering now just what Fox would do once the kidnapping happens. Because these aren't stupid political supporters of some mayor that Fox could roundhouse with ease -- they're Oberon's children. And while Fox got a good shot at Oberon once, and for her kid no less, I doubt she could take on two tricksters . . . at least, not for very long.

Just had a bit of a creativity demon (a not too original or detailed one, I imagine, but I think its fun) where Puck and Fox - among others probably, Lex at least I would think - wind up on Avalon, because hey, that's where Coyote and Raven were supposed to be . . . that is, if I have a good grasp of the timeline.

Not only would it allow for some entertaining Fox/Lex time, but perhaps even a glimpse of the actual Gathering (not just the beginning of it). Still some mysteries, like how the tricksters were able to leave Avalon in the first place or why they'd want Alex.

*sigh* Still crossing my fingers for a new SLG/Disney deal, cause however it works out, this could be one epic of a story.

Harlan -- Hilarious XD

"The suspense is terrible . . . I hope it lasts" -- Willy Wonka

well ransom might be a gargoyles meets bad guys kind of thing, if Goliath and the other Gargoyles and fox will go after alex, i mean i think that would be awesome! if i would be given the chance i would rewrite the Goliath Chronicles into canon episodes like in ransom put in a bigger fight when they invade xanatos's home make fox be more of a fighter in the fight, include fire, and even maybe even some bloodshed and deaths (since bash already showed that), in fact i think Greg should rewrite all of the Goliath Chronicles excluding the thailog one and make them canon. After all, it's a spin-off and deserves it's place among the other Gargoyles spin-offsha, it just needs good canon episodes. Also the one where titania creates the world where goliath is human, that should be done too, sequel to future tense and showing that other of oberon's children have that power, i want to ask greg if other of oberon's children do indeed have that power besides puck!

Fun fact, I reintroduced my friend to Gargoyles. We watched the first two seasons, but before I could show him my trades, he wanted to watch season three.

"It sucks." I said.

"Well we can make fun of it, then." He replied.

We got through The Journey okay, but about halfway through Ransom he looked at me and said, "Can we just stop?"

We still haven't finished Goliath Chronicles.

Harlan Phoenix

H.I> If "Ransom" were a canon episode, you wouldn't need Goliath and the gargoyles to rescue Alex. Fox would go out there, and beat the crap out of as many people as she had to until she found him herself. She wouldn't weep, and cry like the pathetic, little "See You Next Tuesday" the producers of TGC butchered her character into.
Greg Bishansky

We all wish Goliath was real! He's such a great Gargoyle. he's really the type you respect! I wish greg could renovate the Goliath Chronicles Episode where alexander gets kidnapped into a canon episode and if it was real, I'd assume a secret Identity and help them rescue him.

LOL. H.I. Whenever I hear about Keith David I have to remind myself that Goliath isn't real. LOL! Crazy right.
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

Also may i add that i'm reading macbeth in school and it's so hard for me to read it without thinking of the real Macbeth and The Gargoyles' Version which is close to the real Macbeth, whenever i read Macbeth part i try to use John Rhys Davies' Scottish voice, ugghh, i hate seeing Duncan and Malcolm (Canmore) so nice and being heroes.

from the article gargwiki: Behind the Scenes

Voice Actor: Keith David

Thailog was created out of a desire to further explore Keith David's voice acting abilities (specifically in playing a villainous character), but also from hearing audio tapes being rewound during production of Gargoyles. "Thailog" is a phonetic reversal of the word "Goliath", and every time Goliath's name was read backwards it sounded like the word "Thailog" repeated many times.

In creating Thailog (and, later, the other clones), Greg Weisman wanted to avoid creating an identical evil twin that could take the place of the hero and confuse everyone (since he felt this idea "had been done to death"). The altered skin pigmentation (caused, in-universe, by the clone's artificially accelerated aging) was a way of avoiding this. The specifics of Thailog's look were "partially inspired by the changes that John Byrne made to the Fantastic Four's costumes in the eighties", specifically on their return from the Negative Zone. (Greg Weisman has also said that Negaduck, a villain from the Disney series Darkwing Duck, may also have been an inspiration.)[1][2]


i wasn't trying to be a know it all i'm just guessing about keith sheesh! look i was just trying to make a pleasant conversation like demonskyre suggested, but you lashed at me for saying another thing, what nothing i say can satisfy you? So tell me what i can say in your conversations that can be alright? i just want to chat and ask some questions to fellow gargoyles fans.

Um, HI, I don't think Keith David was cast as the witch doctor in The Princess and the Frog solely because of his role as Thailog on Gargoyles; he has a great voice anyway, and very likely had to audition for the part.

If everything you say is indeed true, I think we would all appreciate some evidence on your part. We've all had to deal with people in the past who would just say things to get attention, so please understand where we're coming from; we're a bit skeptical.

Jasmine> Gotcha. Sorry if I came off as overbearing. :)

Guardian - [Guardian105 at gmail dot com]

Did a little research. Visiting inside the statue was closed to the public since 9/11 until the 4th of July of this year. But visitors now must make a reservation in advance and must go through screening similar to that of an airport. Good stuff to know. Maybe I will plan a trip when the weather gets warmer.

Guardian, thanks again for the heads up but I doubt if she reads it. She finds it confusing. But I definitely will. Although I am quite partial to anything Elisa and Goliath related. Guess they can't be in everything.

Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

really they're renovating the statue?

Disney is working on a star wars project Why, because because Star Wars is such a big hit, why would they pass it down? and everything i say is true, but fine, i will move on. you know Keith David wouldn't have voiced the villian in the princess and the frog if he hadn't voiced Thailog, it says on Gargoyles wiki that Thailog was created to test his voice acting as a villain. So it's thanks to Gargoyles that he was in this!

Just saw The Princess and the Frog last night with Blaise. If that don't revitalize Disney 2D animation, I dunno what will. I loved it. It was absolutely adorable. And Keith David? Oh, yeah.

Unfortunately, Jasmine, SLG had to change their artists multiple times throughout the first volume of Clan Building. Bad Guys is fun, though again, I caution you showing it to your daughter. There is at least one mature theme in one of the issues that you probably do not want your daughter seeing at her age . . . *holds hands up* Don't mind me, just the hard-core fan and the bookseller who has your best interests at heart in me. ;)

Guardian - [Guardian105 at gmail dot com]

I thought they were just renovating the Statue. I think I heard somewhere that it was going to re-open or has already. :/
battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.

Normally I'd avoid mentioning public or political figures, simply in the effort to keep the room from bursting into some kind of a flame war . . . so clearly I'd like that to not happen -- this is just a small attempt at some fun discussion.

According to a Reuters, the folks at Ancestry.com have apparently concluded that President Obama and Warren Buffet are distantly related by some 17th century Frenchman known as -- this is where its fun -- Duval.

Okay, okay, Maureen Duvall (with the second 'l' and everything), but still -- knowing the connections of the Illuminati and the White House were somewhat confirmed in "Invitation Only," I couldn't help but get a kick out of the possibiliy that both Number Two's have had a hand in White House history d:

A link to the article for those bored/intrigued --

"The suspense is terrible . . . I hope it lasts" -- Willy Wonka

@ David. Thanks for the post. Pretty cool art!

@ BattleBeast - So true. We tend to take a lot of things for granted. I am very sorry to hear about your friend. We can only hope that maybe he will be able to walk again. There is always hope. I don't think they let people actually go inside the Statue of Liberty after 9/11 anymore tho.

Trying to get used to the comics. The art changes so much. Elisa changed ethnicity so many times in the Clan Building volumes, and Goliath size changed as well but the storyline was good. Just wish it could have been longer.I prefer the show though but at least using this venue he is able to continue the story. Still haven't gotten the Bad Guys volume so I am gonna order it today.

Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

This is not my art. I just wanted to post it up so you can enjoy it.


david - [snake85027 at yahoo dot com]

I GETMY CASTOFF IN TWO WEEKS! YAY! (lousy breoken arm...)

Jasmine> Maybe you should ggo to the Staue of Liberty and Empire State Buildingd so you can say you've been there.

You are right... I`ve lived in Edmonton my whole life and I havent done things,, too. I take them for granted. We shouldn`t do things like that. My friend was in a serious car accidentTWO WEEKS before he was to go on a trip to Paris. Now he`ll never walk again. I stopped taking for granted my LEGS and I have thanked GOD every day for them. Mmy friend won`t ever walk again...

so yah, it`s a goodidea to not take things for granted,.

battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.

10! Now the week may start lol.

Still waiting for that 10 post. The weeks have really been starting off slow lately.
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]

@ Guardian. Thanks for the warning for my daughter. She wasn't bothered by the blood. She had a hard time understanding what was going on in the comic but when she saw the episodes she understood better. Even though Greg said that you can follow the comic without watching the series, I disagree. But maybe thats just me.

You know, I lived in NYC my whole life and maybe I went into the WTC once. Just like I have never been inside the statue of liberty or been to the Empire State building. We tend to take things for granted. WTC was such a part of the NYC skyline. We just took it for granted that it would alwasy be there. Its so unreal to me almost 10 years later. Then we had the blackout the following year so those 12 months were unforgettable. Its a part of our history and I don't think he should shy away from addressing it in his books. Just like slavery and concentration camps and the Native American plight may be unpleasant topics, its still a part of our history. But its only 1997 in the comic so its still a few years away. It happened while they were in stone sleep so I can only imagine what their reactions would have been. Hopefully he will be able to address it tactfully one day should the comic continue.

Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

Aww, I missed the countdown! Oh well, I had a blast at my friend's Hanukah party. :)

Glad to hear you made a fan out of your daughter, Jasmine. I'd also recommend buying the comics, at least for yourself right now, and seeing what sort of new canon stories Greg has given us. There is blood and adult language in the comics, however, so you may want to refrain from showing them to your daughter; or, at the very least, read them with her. Forgive me, I work with Barnes & Noble, and I try to keep parents informed as to what sort of stuff (ie graphic novels and manga) their children are reading; I've had to caution parents buying Watchmen for their sixth-grade-old children. Great stories, but probably not for that age. :)

As for the WTC, I feel your pain. Although I'm a Californian, my mom's side of the family all lives on the Eastern Seaboard, and a couple of my aunts had to evacuate their government buildings. Of course, this isn't to say that I know exactly how you feel, but that you are not alone in your pain.

I, personally, find a great deal of comfort in seeing the Twin Towers in 'The Mirror,' or gazing upon their beautiful (animated) visage on the trading cards I have for the show. It's a shame that I was never able to enter them, but I remember a day long ago when I traveled to New York for the first time in memorable memory and saw them amongst a sea of fog. It was beautiful; I shall never forget that.

Guardian - [Guardian105 at gmail dot com]

Just got my 11 year old daughter to watch it and she loves the show. Definitely something that could do well nowadays if given a shot. Funny how everyone says how great a cartoon this was even over 10 years later. But I get chills everytime I see the WTC in the background. As a NYer I still can't believe those building are gone.
Jasmine - [clarkejasmine05 at yahoo dot com]

H.I.> I still don't see any reason that LucasFilm would work with Disney on a movie that wasn't new Star Tours for anything other than distribution. They have their own animation studio now and they are perfectly capable of making a live-action film on their own. So why get another studio involved and have to share the profits?

There are several people in the Gargoyles fandom who are very talented writers and artists and if it were just as simple as "go to CalArts, get hired at Disney, get them to make more Gargoyles," I'm sure they would have done it. but each of those steps requires not just being very talented and very hard working, but also being more so than the hundreds of other people who want to get into CalArts, get hired by Disney, and get their pet project made or revived. It takes quite a while to get to the point where you can pitch an idea for a show, assuming you ever get there. I find it very presumptuous of you to even suggest that the only reason this hasn't happened already is that no one currently in the fandom ever thought of that idea or that no one bothered to try.

I think people have tried in the past to suggest a name for Gargoyles fans, but nothing's ever stuck and this many years out, I don't suspect anything will. We've done fine without one so far and I think having a term for fans is far from our biggest concern right now.

I am going to suggest one more time that you relax a bit and participate in the conversation instead of trying to dominate it and convince people that you have inside information. If you know it's true, fine. You'll be proven right eventually. For now just let it go and start over. At the end of the day, it's not going to make that much difference whether we believe you or not and right now that's fairly unlikely. So stop pushing it and stop apologizing for the one thing no one is disagreeing with you on: that the Gathering was a pretty small convention. Just sit back, read what other people are writing for a bit, and respond if you have something to contribute.

Demonskrye - [<---"The Land Before Time" at The Ink and Pixel Club]

And also...

H: At this point, I would really suggest that you come clean. I really doubt that Disney is making any sort of Star Wars movie with Lucasfilm, since I've gotten zero hits on IMDB (which should at least be listed as being in production or pre-production). Also, there are people here who personally know Keith David. If he was doing any such thing, I'm sure they might have heard about it.

Also, the fact that you haven't put a name to your source doesn't give you a lot of credibility.

Look, maybe you're just trying to fit in here. If that's the case, you don't have to lie to impress anyone. We're all pretty tolerant here, but most of us have no patience for liars.

Harvester of Eyes
Starbuck: "Can I make a suggestion that you won't like?" Apollo: "Do you make any other kind?" ("Battlestar Galactica")

Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"For science, which, as my associate Fang indicated, must move ever forward. Plus there's the money... and I do love the drama!" -Sevarius, 'Louse'

Harvester of Eyes
"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go." -Indiana Jones

PKBitchGirl - [nekogillespie at gmail dot com]

VickyUK - [vickyfanofwwe at aol dot com]

(2nd) Second!!
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]

First, finally.

And now, back to writing my final papers. . . >.<

"The suspense is terrible . . . I hope it lasts" -- Willy Wonka