Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

Blaise> Well, I'd admit, not only is it a hunch and not only is it an uninformed hunch without any information to back it up, but it is also a uninformed hunch without any information to back it up that I'm not a strong believer in. I suppose it comes down to a few facts. Brooklyn isn't immortal. We know he is going to die eventually, and right now after Hudson, he and Katana are the oldest members of the clan. If they don't lay their last egg in 2007, the logical thing to assume is that one of them is going to die. And for some reason, I just think that with all Brooklyn has been through, something will happen that will make it his time, finally. I dunno, it is just a hunch. I wonder if Gnash will take over Brooklyn's sarcastic role to an extent, though in no way would I want or expect him to be an exact copy of his father's personality. And for some reason my same uniformed hunch also makes me think that Katana will live to be very old.

But who knows?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Sun, Jun 20, 2010 1:22:57 pm EDT from 76.217.239.172

****Blaise materializes in the Room with a large cake that he places on the table.**** No, this isn't for my birthday (that was last week). Today is Father's Day (at least in the U.S.A.--do any other places celebrate?). So to Greg Weisman, and all the other fathers out there:
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!
(Hmmm, thinking of this and Mother's Day, I find myself wondering, what would these days be like for gargoyles? I think they'd approve of them...but man, for a healthy sized clan, that's A LOT of greeting cards. ;-))

MATT> Just out of curiosity (and because he IS my favorite character), what makes you feel that Brooklyn won't make it to fall 2007? Not saying you're wrong (and the GargWiki Timeline does have a "Withheld" entry for March 28, 2007, so...) but I am curious as to what informs the hunch.

Well, I've got to spread Father's Day wishes to all the fathers in MY family, so I'll check out for now. Until next time! ****Blaise snaps his fingers and a door appears in the middle of the room, standing by itself. He opens it and passes through, closing the door behind him. The door then winks out of existence.****
Blaise
posted @ Sun, Jun 20, 2010 11:35:50 am EDT from 76.208.135.217

Greg B> Well, yeah of course, but we are not really discussing who Brook and Katana's third egg would be, but rather why they might not produce an egg at all and what that means for their characters. Naturally, if they are alive at the time, Artus and Gwen and Lancelot and whomever else will be their kids too. The question is will Katana and Brook have a biological child in the 2018 rookery, cuz Greg hasn't suggested they would and that makes us do all this speculation.

I think it is pretty clear that 'Egwardo' will be the only egg in the Manhattan Clan's 1998 rookery, but I wonder about the 2018 rookery. Will there be a single egg (Artus) in that generation as well?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Sun, Jun 20, 2010 9:24:45 am EDT from 76.217.239.172

Rebel> You're entitled to your opinion in what you think is more important in an animated show, but I seriously suggest you set foot in a production studio and see things aren't as black and white as you make it.

Good luck and enjoy your American cartoons.
Roy
posted @ Sat, Jun 19, 2010 4:56:10 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Also keep in mind that gargoyles raise their young communally. So, for example, if something were to happen to Artus, it would be the same to Brooklyn and Katana as if something were to happen to Nashville or Tachi.

Nashville and Tachi are Broadway, Lexington, Angela, and Goliath's children too, you know.

From the last Radio Play:

272. BROOKLYN
Thanks. I know he hatched in another decade, but Katana and I discussed it, and we want the whole clan to be Gnash and Egwardo's Rookery parentsâ€¦
Greg Bishansky
Demona likes Buffalo Wings.
posted @ Sat, Jun 19, 2010 4:46:06 pm EDT from 68.199.5.105

Hey guys I recently made a big move and due to space I need to get rid of some stuff. Including my Gargoyles collection. I really don't want to deal with eBay and I prefer selling the stuff to a real fan. Included are several opened action figures demona, Goliath, Brooklyn, Hudson, steel clan, 2 coldstones, broadway, xanatos, xanatos car, xanatos as steel clan. I got an unopenef Brooklyn bike. An alarm clock. Unused paint your own cels and rubber stamp kits, bunch of books, I might gave Elisa too. I am still going through boxes. If you are interested it's a name your price deal, like I said I want it to go to a fan. Email me for a pic
Siren - [Sirengarg at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Sat, Jun 19, 2010 4:28:23 pm EDT from 74.243.10.226

It doesn't seem likely there were any other survivors of the ChacIxChel Massacre of 1993, but we have no way of knowing. There isn't any indication that there could've been survivors, but then we all know that half the time in Gargoyles characters don't know what they are talking about anyway.

I doubt there would be any reason that Brooklyn and Katana would CHOOSE not to conceive a third biological child. Yes, something could happen to that child, but something could happen to anyone. If parents refused to reproduce out of fear their child could be killed, there would be a lot fewer of us around. Biological imperitive and all that.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Sat, Jun 19, 2010 3:54:01 pm EDT from 76.217.239.172

B&K's Egg: sorry Matt, I meant that it doesn't leave out the other two options.. (need to find a way to edit that post :p)..

about Zafiro and Obsidiana I was just saying that since they know what it's like to have their biological child ( as well as other rookery children) die .. I wonder if that's a possible reason for B&K not to have a third child...

or I wonder that the child might have been away from the pyramid when the massacre happened.. like with Demona..
Starlioness
posted @ Fri, Jun 18, 2010 7:03:12 pm EDT from 71.227.182.82

I'm thinking Greg hasn't made any definitive statements on Brook and Katana's next egg more for dramatic reasons then anything else. He's probably doesn't want to tip his hand on whether Brook or Kat even survive all the way to 2007.
Algernon
posted @ Fri, Jun 18, 2010 5:27:21 pm EDT from 86.40.249.1

Matt> So I looked up that comment I remembered (it's here http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=6). Turns out it's old. REALLY old. As in, it was from July 1998. Since then, the Master Plan as undergone numerous revisions (moving the Space Spawn invasion back a full 40 years, among other known changes), so I imagine Greg will now have a much better idea of whether Brook & Katana have a third egg and, if not, why not.

Something else I notice: this is the same comment in which Greg prevaricates over how many eggs they have. Has he said in any more recent posts whether he is still not sure, or refused to answer? Maybe it's not even an issue any more.
Supermorff
posted @ Fri, Jun 18, 2010 2:30:07 pm EDT from 86.154.246.18

Brook and Kat's Third Egg:
Supermorff> While being in tune with the Earth is something to consider, I find it very unlikely that Katana has not re-synched with the Earth's biorhythms by 2007. By that time she'll have lived in New York for TEN years, and as far as we know, she won't do much (if any) traveling through either space or time. Ten years should be beyond adequate, esspecially considering that she managed to reproduce her first two heats in the midst of all the time traveling. Besides, Angela will enter her first heat in 2007, her bio-rhythms will have stabilized, and she only arrived in New York less than a year before Katana. I would love to see what Greg has to say about the topic, however, if anyone can find the post(s).
Starlinoness> What do you mean by "..but that also doesn't leave the other two options.."? As for Zafiro and Obsidiana, yeah they had an egg in the Mayan Clan's 1978 rookery, but that child and all the rest of the clan aside from the Pendant Wearers were destroyed, as far as we and the four survivors know anyway. However, Zafiro and Obsidiana also have an egg in the 1998 rookery at ChacIxChel which will hatch at the same time as Tachi.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Fri, Jun 18, 2010 1:34:20 pm EDT from 76.217.239.172

Roy >

"How would you measure the notion of "equal amount of engineering and their work was both equally important?" Let's say someone on the US's side did rough character sketches for Gargoyles characters, but someone on the Japanese side redesigned the character(s) to make them viable for animation, who is more important? Is one rough Elisa concept drawing more important than 30+ drawings of Elisa model sheets by a different artist?"

I'm not talking about animation and character designs, Roy. I'm talking about the story. To me, the story/concept is a much more integral part of the "engineering" of a cartoon than the visuals. Let me ask you this, Roy--did the Japanese team make significant contributions to the story? If they made contributions to the story that were more-or-less as substantial as the American contributions, then I could entertain the idea that maybe Gargoyles is a Japanese show. But as far as I know, the lion's share of the work on the concept/story/script was done in America, therefore it's an American cartoon, at least to me, just as a cartoon conceived/written in Japan is a Japanese cartoon, regardless of where it's animated.

*shrug*
I'm sorry, but to me, animation/visuals/models/character designs are second fiddle to story/writing. If Greg Weisman wrote a Gargoyles novel, but then an animator who was intimately involved with the character designs and animation in Gargoyles created hours worth of new clips of animation of the characters in Gargoyles (but these clips told no story), and I could only choose one of these things to experience (the novel or the animation), I would choose the novel.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:14:10 pm EDT from 69.134.199.200

just testing earlier..

about the third egg.. yeah, it's possible the egg might be destroyed one way or another.. but that also doesn't leave the other two options..

if I remember correctly.. didn't Zafiro and Obsidiana have a child also in 1978? that child might have been in killed in the 1993 slaughter of the mayan clan..

on the flip side , it might be possible that one of the eggs of the 1998 hatching could be Tachi's future mate if that's possible..

btw, how much longer do we have to post spoiler tags of Clan building Vol II? I know not everyone has Bad Guys.. but Vol II's been out a while..
starlioness
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 8:16:39 pm EDT from 206.188.50.1

test....
starlioness
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 8:12:12 pm EDT from 206.188.50.1

Sorry, the last anonymous comment was me.
Supermorff
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:56:23 pm EDT from 86.154.246.18

Brooklyn & Katana's third egg> I'm pretty sure that Greg provided a potential reason that they might not be able to produce a third egg, and it wasn't any of Blaise's options. It was that Katana's biological clock might not have re-synched with the Earth's biorhythms. Someone might want to see if they can find an actual comment with that. (Or I might be remembering wrong. That's been known to happen.)
Anonymous
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:55:48 pm EDT from 86.154.246.18

Matt> Sorry, that question was meant for Rebel.

Rebel> How would you measure the notion of "equal amount of engineering and their work was both equally important?" Let's say someone on the US's side did rough character sketches for Gargoyles characters, but someone on the Japanese side redesigned the character(s) to make them viable for animation, who is more important? Is one rough Elisa concept drawing more important than 30+ drawings of Elisa model sheets by a different artist?

I hear directors/writers spew out ideas all the time, but a majority of the time, it's the artists ideas and concepts that make them possible. Not trying to imply artists are more important, but the gist I get from some of these comments is that the artists are second fiddle to anyone involved in the writing/planning process.

Blaise> Thanks for your comment. Personally, I've heard many interpretations of the meaning behind the term, anime. I've already mentioned mine, as other posters theirs. As much as people would like to believe their version, it's obvious the word is still open for interpretation.

The term, 'otaku', is a basically an insult. It's a word with very negative connotations. It doesn't apply to just anime/manga fans, but the use is applied the same. What few anime cons I've been to stateside, it made me cringe when hearing fans proudly admitting they are anime otaku. The term, 'Hentai,' has also been misused in the west as it's not even used to describe sexually pornographic anime/manga in Japan. It's a word to describe sexual pervertedness, and like 'otaku,' it has very negative connotations.
Roy
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:49 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Brook and Kat's third egg> Yeah, this is something I've wondered a lot about also. While I think the idea of one of the two eggs being destroyed and it not being certain whose egg it was and no one really caring much either, I tend to think that either Brook or Kat will die before Fall, 2007 (when conception for that breeding cycle takes place). I have a feeling it'll be Brooklyn actually. Just a hunch, I have nothing to back it up.

Roy> Huh?
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:16:59 pm EDT from 76.217.239.172

Roy > I assume your last post was directed at me, rather than Matt. I would have to say that it would depend on how much engineering was done in each country, and also to an extent on which country engineered which parts...some car parts (such as the engine) are more important than other car parts, so if both countries did a roughly equal amount of engineering, but one country generally did the parts that were more important, I'd attribute the car to the latter country. If the two countries did an equal amount of engineering and their work was both equally important, I'd attribute it to both countries.

But I don't see how that applies to Gargoyles. Wasn't all (or at least, the overwhelming majority) of the work on the story done in the U.S.? The concept, story, and script is what constitutes the "engineering" of a cartoon for me.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:33 pm EDT from 69.134.199.200

****Blaise walks in through the door.**** No prestidigitation today: my right hand's got a bit of "trigger-finger" and I should rest it...RIGHT AFTER I type my post.

ROY> First, in regards to your car conundrum: I actually find that an interesting question. A great deal of it seems to be American, but I find myself wondering who made the decision for the car to be made in the first place (the initial concept, if you will), and (more importantly) where the money came from (for some strange reason, it always comes down to the money).
As for what constitutes an "anime" in the USA...yeah, what would be the "correct" answer? Heh, I still remember (late '80s-early '90s) commercials for "Japan-imation" so I don't even know how long the term "anime" has been used State-side for that particular style. And there is a certain style in both character design and animation that tends to determine whether American audiences classify something as "anime" or "Western animation" (something to do with the number of mouth shapes or something...). Of course, sometimes the line blurs and we have a series ostensibly from one country that mimics the style of the other (I know of "American" series mimicking "Japanese" styles and vice-verse). As for what would differentiate one from the other for me...well, I guess maybe whatever language the movie/series was originally written in.
(Incidentally, I would be interested to hear how "otaku" and "hentai" have been mangled in their journey across the Pacific (I mean, I can pretty much guess about "otaku"--which I think[i/] is a bit of an insult in Japan--but I'd like to hear it form some one who's actually been on both sides.))
One last thing: Personally, while I consider animation to be animation, I do tend to differentiate between American and Japanese (and, whether English or Japanese, I generally prefer to hear it in it's native language), but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the hard work done by the other side on the animation in question. That goes for the Japanese (and Korean, and heck, even Australian) animators on [i]Gargoyles, as well as for the American actors who do dubs of Japanese animation (GOOD dubs, mind you).
Roy, you and all the talented folks at Walt Disney in Japan did a GREAT job on the series. Seriously, pretty much all of the best animated episodes came from your studio. Heck, even the "Angels in the Night" episode of TGC was given points just for bringing back WD-J as the animating studio for the last episode. We all respect and appreciate the work you guys put into our favorite series, regardless of which side of the Pacific we think it belongs on.
Seriously (and we cannot say this enough): Thank you.

BROOKLYN AND KATANA'S THIRD EGG?> This has been turning over in my mind quite a bit. Greg has only ever said that Brooklyn and Katana have "at least two" kids. Now this could mean they will have a third egg at the same time Angela and Broadway have their first egg (which will hatch Artus), but the fact that it's not a certainty naturally provokes curiosity as to what might possibly prevent them from having this third egg. As I said, this thought has been puttering around my brain for a time, and I've actually thought of a few scenarios (none of which involve a voluntary decision not to have an egg, because I just can't see that happening...outside of extreme health reasons, maybe). Naturally, all of them involve a certain amount of tragedy:
1) Enforced separation. For whatever reason, the two of them cannot "do it" during the next breeding cycle. This is perhaps the least traumatic of the scenarios. I mean, yes, missing the chance to have one last child is tragic, but at least the rest of the clan is alive and well.
2) One of them (Brooklyn or Katana) dies before the next breeding cycle. Now, THIS would be a hard one. We've had regulars added to the cast before, but haven't lost one yet. If it's Katana, it'll suck because she is, if not a "new" character by that time (her next breeding cycle is in 2008), she's still "newer" than most of the rest of the cast (and it's nice having a "combat mom" in the clan). And if it's Brooklyn...well, it'll suck for me because he's my favorite character. Either way, it just seems sad that they settle down after decades of time traveling only for THIS to happen. Okay, it would be wonderfully dramatic (and every-one's going to die at some point), but for me...I don't know, it just seems kind of "cheap" somehow.
3: (My personal pick) Brooklyn and Katana do lay their third egg, the egg is placed in the Rookery with Artus's...and somehow destroyed. Yeah. This one will also be tough just because of how horrible a parent losing a child would be. However, I also see this as a way of highlighting the communal nature of the gargs. I mean, they have a rookery, finally. Only two eggs, but still a rookery. Then, somehow (natural disaster, enemy attack, etc.), one of the eggs is destroyed...but it's never specified which one. Now, folks with access to "Ask Greg" would know, but as far as anyone else (including the characters) is concerned, it could have been either egg. The clan mourns the loss of a child together, and raises the surviving child together.

Okay, I have to rest this hand now. Until next time! ****Blaise folds his arms, nods his head, and...nothing happens. He then just shrugs and jumps out the window. A golden dragon then flies up and past with window with Blaise riding on its back.****
Blaise
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:57:27 pm EDT from 76.208.157.178

Patrick> Thanks for a thorough answer about the car question. It's exactly what I wanted to point out. Depending on who you ask, something like a car's country of origin can be wildly interpreted. Sure, calling a Toyota Camry an American car is probably not the norm, but depending who ask, it can be technically correct. Touting Gargoyles as, "from the creators of Thundercats!" or "Drawn by anime artists in Japan!" would probably not be a very good sales pitch from Disney's point of view or for those who think Disney cartoons are all American.

Matt> Here's a re-edit of your question with an analogy closer to what happened in Gargoyles production. What if the engineers who designed the car wasn't all done in one country?
Roy
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:35:06 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Roy > Toyota's dealers and advertising team are going to claim it's American since it was built here, but Ford and GM are going to say it's a foreign car and the profits are going back to Japan. It's a vehicle built in America by an overseas-based company. Whether that is "good" or "bad" depends entirely on who's giving the sales pitch.

To me, the difference between American animation and Japanese animation (aka anime) is more about the style of the animation and not so much about where the drawing was done. "Gargoyles" was created by a U.S. studio, written predominately in the U.S., voice-recorded originally in English, and syndicated initially to to North American broadcasters for North American audiences. I would call that an American cartoon.
Patrick
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:06:35 am EDT from 173.88.135.205

Roy, I'm not answering your car question because I don't think it's a fair question for this particular debate. Because the car's relationship to America (in your example) is not the same as Gargoyles' relationship to Japan (in real life). You seem to be focusing only on the character designs and animation itself in your assignment of which country is responsible for which cartoons, whereas, to me, that is not as important as who conceived of the idea, who planned out and wrote the stories, who wrote the script for the voice actors, etc. To me, Gargoyles would still be Gargoyles if it had a different animation team and different character designs. But it wouldn't still be Gargoyles if it had a different creative team and a different storyline.

For what it's worth, if the Gargoyles concept, its stories, and script had all been done in Japan, but the animation and character designs had been done in America, I would consider it a Japanese cartoon.

Here's a fairer version of the car question: A car is designed by Japanese engineers, but built in America with American parts. Is this car American or Japanese? I would consider it Japanese. Who ultimately slaps a label on it is irrelevant.

"Anime" to me isn't merely something that is animated in Japan. It's something that is conceived of by Japanese people and written by Japanese people. "Anime", to me, also tends to imply a certain animation style that is distinctly different from a Western animation style, but the key is who wrote it.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:02:09 am EDT from 69.134.199.200

*nervously glances at the CR tension-meter*
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 10:46:21 am EDT from 76.217.239.172

Ian> I wasn't aware my opinion of the definition of anime was in such a minority here in the US or that there was such a rigid standard for what is arguably a fan-created terminology. Of course, I could go on with butchering of other terms like, "otaku" and "hentai", but I'm not to here to give a Japanese lesson.

As for anime outsourcing to Korea, sure, it's common practice. In fact, a series like Ranma 1/2 got so bad with it's outsourcing to Korea near the tail end of the series, it was nicknamed "Kankoku Ranma"(Korean Ranma). At least in Japan it was. Here in the states, fans probably didn't care as they probably lumped it in as 'anime.'

No one have an answer for my car question?
Roy
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 10:23:32 am EDT from 75.142.126.76

I don't remember the 1987 series too well, but I sometimes wondered about one feature in it (maybe it was explained, maybe it wasn't). In the backstory, Shredder and Splinter were at odds because Shredder had seen Splinter as his chief rival to the leadership of the Foot Clan - leading Shredder to frame Splinter for an attempt to assassinate the previous leader of the Foot Clan, and then seize control once Splinter had been banished. But then, through most of the episodes, the Foot Clan soldiers are robots rather than humans - and however useful this was for Standards & Practices, I couldn't help wondering what happened to the human members. (It could be up there with the "Goliath Chronicles" case of the Quarrymen after "The Journey" now being Castaway's hired goons rather than frightened citizens manipulated by him.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 8:01:22 am EDT from 4.244.213.15

Roy, your standards of what constitutes anime are far from traditional, and while that's perfectly all right, please be aware that in a world where the word has a (or, to be more accurate, two--the one in Japan and the one for everywhere else) pretty darn standardized definition(s), it is likely to lead to miscommunication and unecessary confusion. Not to mention, that as more anime studios come to rely on Korean studios for cheaper animation, your definition would classify a good amount of series as "Korean cartoons", which very few people would agree with.

On TMNT (1987) season 1: I'd have to disagree, Harvester of Eyes: yes, the plot was more prominent there than in future episodes, as was the Standard Operating Procedure for five-episode pilots. And while yes, those particular episodes did have their less-funny moments, it also had a lot of random silliness. My favorite example is a scene at April's appartment where Raph suddenly decides to draw a bubble bath and understands "add a capful of solution" to refer to a baseball cap, and where Leo throws open tubes of lipstick at April's paintings for "target practice".
Ian Perez - [doknowbutchie at gmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 7:21:11 am EDT from 173.211.145.183

Harlan: Actually, from what I remember about the first few episodes of TMNT (in which we got the origin of the Turtles and established the major plot points), it was less about goofball antics and more about the story. That changed very quickly.
Harvester of Eyes
"NO MORE INTERVIEWS!" -Phaeton
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:52:33 am EDT from 72.196.241.111

We'll have to agree to disagree: to me, the foundations of Gargoyles are the planning, scripting, and writing. It couldn't exist without the animation, but the animation is not where it began. Ergo, I think of it as an American cartoon, not anime.
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even dragonflies and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:14:21 am EDT from 96.52.134.1

Incisivis> Seems like we're going in circles about this debate, but let me ask you this. A car is designed by an American team and assembled here in the US factories using American workers. Parts content is over 75% domestic. The car rolls off the line and a Japanese manufacturer's nameplate goes right on the trunk.

Is this car Japanese or American?
Roy
posted @ Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:58:12 am EDT from 75.142.126.76

I've just read Darkwing Duck #1 as well and highly recommend it. It's surprisingly funny and shows a lot of potential.
Landon Thomas - [<- Gargoyles News Twitter Feed]
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 10:17:18 pm EDT from 216.250.163.157

Roy> Credit is fine. Nobody is arguing that Exosquad wasn't influenced by anime--it's been said as much that the staff were big Gundam fans. I'm just arguing that anime wasn't the only influence on Exosquad, or the sole reason that series like Exosquad exist in America. And by extension, I'm arguing that exposure to anime is not the sole reason that we have epic American cartoons.

And as I understand it, the popular North American definition of anime is not "a cartoon drawn by the Japanese": it is an animated work whose foundations (script, writing, planning, etc.) were made in Japan, for the consumption of a Japanese audience. If we are going to treat Japanese animation as a separate grouping (rather than using the original Japanese definition of "anime"), that is the only one that makes sense to me.

I don't think anyone is denying that the Japanese animation teams brought some great visuals to Gargoyles. But that does not make it anime, IMO.

Antiyonder> Yes, those were fun shows and successful ones. But the sheer volume of such similar shows, or even more "adult" types, being produced in Japan, far outstrips ours, and I don't think it's something inherent to American storytelling, but just an unfortunate consequence of the history of animation in the U.S. If the climate was a little different, we'd see more U.S. series of the type we are discussing--somebody's just got to convince the Powers that Be, and the general public, that such shows are good.
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even dragonflies and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 8:14:44 pm EDT from 96.52.134.1

Sorry for the double post, but what I meant to say was that TSSM ratings on KidsWB was high, not outperforming the other shows,
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
Algernon's comment about Norman Osborn: One of the neat things about Dark Reign is that it gives Osborn the chance to expand his horizons beyond tormenting a twenty nine year old who still lives with his mom.
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 8:00:26 pm EDT from 71.115.241.194

Incisivis> Therefore, sophisticated, serious TV series cartoons are seen as less marketable and profitable, and creators who *want* to make good American action cartoons have trouble getting their material made, and in sustaining it in the market. The only thing that anime may have done was to show that such series could be *profitable*, not that they could be conceived of at all.

I'd argue that the only reason they seem unsuccessful is because they weren't the flavor of the month.

Gargoyles I believe while not at the top of the charts was still considered successful enough to be deemed a hit (until Season 3 aired of course). And considering that the total episode request for Season 2 was 52 episodes, I'd imagine that Disney held the series in fairly high regards.

The recent TMNT series lasted for over a hundred episodes, and before the network change, The Spectacular Spider-Man out performed the other shows on KidsWB.
Antiyonder - [antiyonder at yahoo dot com]
Algernon's comment about Norman Osborn: One of the neat things about Dark Reign is that it gives Osborn the chance to expand his horizons beyond tormenting a twenty nine year old who still lives with his mom.
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 7:59:23 pm EDT from 71.115.241.194

Incivis> You implied Gargoyles was not an anime. I brought up both definitions (US, Japan) as it would be wrong on both counts. Anime, at least by some US definitions I've heard, is a cartoon by drawn by Japanese. Anime, by Japanese definition is a cartoon. Since I was an animator on the show in Japan, I can swear to you that Gargoyles was drawn by the Japanese, is a cartoon and we weren't just some sweat shop that mindlessly churned out cels for US studios.

I've been in this industry a long time and influences vs. credits is an ugly game. Exosquad claiming anime influence doesn't make it an anime(again, I never said it was), but someone somewhere obviously felt it was a selling point or I would have never heard of the claim. Again, my point of view is seeing Japanese creators get their fair share of credit instead of being shoved into a corner, whether or not they officially had anything to do with helping US animated TV shows go in the direction they did in the 80's and 90's.
Roy
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 7:03:39 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

CHIP - I saw the preview of the "Darkwing Duck" comic at Comics Continuum a couple of days ago, and also noticed the [SPOILER] "Starducks" [/SPOILER] part - though my favorite part of the preview pages was the [SPOILER] constantly rescheduled corporate meeting - I particularly liked the detail about all the room numbers and times being rearrangements of the same three numbers [/SPOILER].
Todd Jensen
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 6:48:22 pm EDT from 4.244.208.161

Roy> I am operating under the popular North American use of "anime", and I thought you were, too: because otherwise, why argue that Gargoyles is anime if, by the definition you're using, everything animated is "anime"?

I've already made my viewpoint clear as to what I think determines the country that "owns" an animated property. For the record, I also consider Avatar an American cartoon, full stop.

Exosquad being "inspired" by anime does not mean that without anime, no one would never have gotten the idea to make Exsoquad, which is how I interpreted your assertion.

Exosquad may have used things that were unusual for American *cartoons* at the time, but they were far from unknown to Americans in general. Complex military stories, giant robots, genetically-engineered superhumans, and whatever other sci-fi tropes Exosquad uses are not exclusive to anime, and anime is not solely responsible for the existence of Exosquad.

Will Meugniot, one of the producers of the show, has admitted that he used Gundam as an inspiration for the series...but also WW2: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.anime/msg/34beb481026001eb?pli=1. Anime was not the only thing used.

Or if you want to put it another way, it is said that Gundam was inspired by Starship Troopers...does that make Mobile Suit Gundam an American sci-fi novel, or a sci-fi anime?
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even dragonflies and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 6:16:09 pm EDT from 96.52.134.1

Incisvis> I didn't say Exosquad was an anime. I said there were claims it was inspired by it. Doesn't that go against your theory of early anime dubs not creating an interest in serious animated storytelling? Unless of course, the anime-inspiration is implying the art style.

And as for the definition of anime, I believe you have your facts mixed up. By definition, the term, 'anime'(to the Japanese), is a cartoon, not something that's specifically made for the Japanese. You'll find Disney cartoons along the 'anime' aisle at video rentals right along Akira and Dragonball Z in Japan. Unfortunately, westerners have butchered this term along with numerous others (otaku, hentai, etc.) Maybe since I'm in the industry I see things differently. To me, Simpsons is a Korean cartoon. Gargoyles is a Japanese one. Avatar is Chinese.

Maybe I'm just tired of seeing the creators on the production end getting the short end of the credit stick. Gargoyles had a lot of creative pre-production designing on the Japanese side as well, so it really burns me when people lump a series like Gargoyles as 'American.' Just my opinion.
Roy
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 6:00:24 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Roy> Exosquad may have been "inspired" by anime, but that does not make it anime. It is an American cartoon, just like Gargoyles is.

Neither are anime because anime are cartoons created by Japanese creators for a Japanese audience. What defines a cartoon's country are who came up with the concepts, characters, plots, and scripts, and which audience it was made for. Gargoyles was created, planned, written, and voiced by a Western crew, and was made for a Western audience. Therefore, it is an American cartoon. It is not a Japanese cartoon any more than The Simpsons is a Korean cartoon because it has Korean studios doing the animation work.

I have no citations for there always being an American desire for serious animated storytelling, but it seems logical: it makes no sense that fans and creators of American animation have absolutely no idea that complex and action-oriented stories could be told in cartoons before watching anime suddenly demonstrated that to them.

The problem has never been that no Americans wanted to see action-oriented, mature animated series before anime aired on TV. The problem is that the *general public*, not animation nerds, has come, through a variety of historical circumstances, to see animation as a kids' medium in the U.S.

Therefore, sophisticated, serious TV series cartoons are seen as less marketable and profitable, and creators who *want* to make good American action cartoons have trouble getting their material made, and in sustaining it in the market. The only thing that anime may have done was to show that such series could be *profitable*, not that they could be conceived of at all.
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even dragonflies and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 5:12:42 pm EDT from 96.52.134.1

Incisivis> Wasn't Exosquad a series claimed to be 'inspired by anime?' And yes, Robotech was originally Japanese, but stateside writers strung three completely unrelated anime into one complete storyline. It wasn't a mindless dub job thrown unto the airwaves like a lot of anime is. Though, I find your statement about early dubbed anime not creating the desire for such shows among fans and creators, interesting. If you have facts to back up that statement, I'd like to hear them.

Also, what makes something an 'American' cartoon? The writing? Gargoyles may have had the Disney banner and Greg's name on it, but a lot of preproduction, designs, actual production and final film was delivered by us in Japan. By all technical definitions, Gargoyles could be considered an anime.
Roy
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 4:45:55 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Roy> As both of those were dubbed anime, I don't think they really "count", in the sense that we were discussing American cartoons before this.

And while I do love anime, it's probably inaccurate to suggest that early anime dubs created an interest in serious animated storytelling. I think the interest has always been there, it's just harder to produce and sell them in America, for various reasons. Anime airings might have convinced others that such shows could be profitable and interesting, but they did not create the desire for such shows among fans and creators.

Exosquad was a great show; I've discovered it via DVD and downloads, since it never aired up here in Canada (which was odd, given the Canadian voice actors it employed).
Incisivis - [incisivis at hotmail dot com]
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even dragonflies and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."--Shirley Jackson
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 3:01:10 pm EDT from 96.52.134.1

Robotech (aka Macross, Southern Cross, Mospeada) was a product of the 80's and got people on the bandwagon of enjoying serious storytelling in cartoons; at least it was among my friends at the time. Or if you want to jump a decade earlier, Star Blazers (Space Cruiser Yamato) did the same, employing a continuous, mature storyline that was dubbed and aired in the US.
Roy
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 2:33:49 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Hey guys, I hate to interupt the talk on the 80s and 90s cartoons. (An interesting chat, that I have been following) but I wanted to come out of Lurking mode and comment on the Darkwing Duck comic that came out today. I thought that it was extremely well done and very funny too. I very much enjoyed the return of the various pun names [SPOILER] such as Starducks, [/SPOILER] and I especially the gentle, or perhaps not so gentle jab at another Disney Property [SPOILER] Hannah Alaska, made me laugh out loud [/SPOILER] I also wished to inform the room that they announced at the end of the book that DW will be getting more than 4 issues, they have extended his comic book appearance indefinitely.
Chip - [Sir_Griff723 at yahoo dot com]
"I am the Terror, That Flaps in the Night,"--Darkwing Duck
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 12:35:03 pm EDT from 204.184.4.34

There were other animated shows in the 90s that were more serious dramas or employed continuity to good effect. What I object to is the idea that the 90s were some kind of breeding ground for shows like this while the 80s produced nothing silly camp comedy. The 90s had its fair share of comic cartoons where every episodes returned the characters to the status quo a the end, some good and some bad. I think being made in the 90s did have some influence on Gargoyles and why it turned out the way it did. But it's just one factor out of many that shaped the show's development. I think you can point to conditions in just about any decade that shaped the television animation of that time for better or worse. But with so many shows produced in any given decade since television's debut, I don't think it's fair to point to a particular decade as being overall good or bad for TV animation.
Demonskrye - [<---ThunderCats at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 10:24:40 am EDT from 146.115.115.75

Loved Exosquad back in the day. That was a great show.
Matt - [ewoks11 at hotmail dot com]
"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'
posted @ Wed, Jun 16, 2010 8:32:37 am EDT from 76.217.239.172

Harvester>"Yeah, I watched it religiously when I was small, but looking back at a lot of those episodes, they don't stand up well if you're looking for a serious story."

...But it wasn't a serious story. You shouldn't admit something is largely campy fun and then knock it off a point for saying a serious story can't be found.
Harlan Phoenix
posted @ Tue, Jun 15, 2010 11:19:14 pm EDT from 216.96.89.179

Actually, there were a lot of cartoons in the 1990s that broke the mold as far as style and storytelling were concerned. Another 90s cartoon I can think of is "Exosquad," which actually predates Gargoyles by about a year. I bought the Season One DVD after hearing a few friends of mine talk about it, and I was very impressed with the story, which really didn't pull any punches. Nothing mindless about that one.

And I'm sorry, but the 1987 TMNT cartoon was corny. Yeah, I watched it religiously when I was small, but looking back at a lot of those episodes, they don't stand up well if you're looking for a serious story. Which actually is not entirely the cartoon's fault. The first few episodes were pretty decent, and actually had the turtles using their weapons to fight foot soldiers. Then parents started to bitch about how the cartoons were too violent, and the series was retooled to make Shredder and Krang the first animated gay couple to have widespread approval. They do stand up well for their campiness, though.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"This kangaroo's a lunatic, and his pouch is very full of pussycats and penguins who can't fly as a rule. But then neither can the pussycat, he never went to school." -Ian Anderson
posted @ Tue, Jun 15, 2010 6:52:41 pm EDT from 72.196.241.111

TMNT 1987: While my only basis for judgment are my hazy memories and my Season 1 DVD (which also includes several season 10 episodes), I'd say that the original cartoon is okay, as long as you know what you're getting. A lot of things about it--particularly the Shredder and Krang--are still great fun. Season 1 also has some really nice animation, particularly episode 4, which has some rather Anime-like storyboarding in parts--unfortunately, it didn't last, and not it's sort of funny how the best-animated version of that incarnation of the Turtles is either Turtles Forever or the Japanese OVA.

People will say that Turtles Forevermade the original cartoon turtles too silly, and to an extent, they're right. However, I'd hesitate to say that the original toon had serious moments as much as it had less funny ones. Even in the latter seasons when the series tried to ape Batman: TAS (and dare I say it, maybe even Gargoyles?), the somberness never felt natural.

The second series, for all its problems--and it has its share--managed to strike a balance. While its more dramatic moments may have occasionally missed the mark, it managed to coexist with the humor in a much more natural manner. Then there's also the fact that the series managed to tell one big 117-episode story--no small feat. And while it's impossible to prove, I've always suspected that Gargoyles played a part in how TMNT 2k3 turned out, particularly since two of its early writers--Eric Luke and Marty Isenberg--wrote for both.
Ian Perez - [doknowbutchie at gmail dot com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 9:10:23 pm EDT from 67.203.216.154

Todd Jensen> Yes, in fact I recorded it as well. Great contrast between the two groups, and unlike the majority of 1987 fans, I found that the original cast got their due.

In fact Douglas Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) did a short review on it: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/16464-turtles-forever-review

It was originally suppose to be the subject for the 100th NC review, but was deemed too good.

Stephen Sobotka> I'm not declaring it to be equal, nor superior to the 2003 or the comic books. I was merely asking how people perceive it as a cartoon in general.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 8:45:55 pm EDT from 96.239.207.177

ANTIYONDER -- <<Incidently, I wanted some imput on the 1987 TMNT cartoon. Now I sometimes wonder if the show is really is low quality or not.>>
Personally, I had jumped on the 1987 TMNT show when it first broke out, and was pretty thrilled with it at first, because I had gotten ahold of the table-top RPG version of "Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness" from Palladium Books a couple of years prior. From the content inside the manual, I was stoked to see the turtles in the animated format.
However, as the series rolled along I was rather dissapointed. They played the whole concept of the Turtles, April, Casey and Shredder and the TCRI aliens into a rather slap-stick, corney parody of the original Eastman and Laird idea. There was no death, no epic last-stand battles, no grit and hardly anything that endeared me to the franchise that followed.
It was later abundantly clear the show had been put out to be the vehicle for the Playmates toys and for all the subsequent products they tried to put on the kid's market. In short, it wasn't anything I wanted to have anything to do with.
In all truth, it wasn't until years later, when I found the collected issues of the original Eastman and Laird black and white comics that I decided that the original was far better -- storywise and in concept -- than the 1987 version had ever attempted to be.
To rate the 1987 version, you really have to put it against the 2003-2009 series that was created. It honestly does not hold a candle, in that the later series is far more faithful -- both in story, in execution and in progression of the first stories -- than the 1987 series ever was. Yes, I do agree that the 2003 series does bring some comedy and some changes that probably Kevin and Peter never thought about back in the 1980's. But, overall, side-by-side, 1987's version is in my opinion far lower in substance, to what the 2003 series brings to the table. For its time it may not exactly be low quality, but I cringe when I hear people touting it as superior to the 2003 series. If they'd go back a few years before, and read the original comics they'd probably change their mind.
Stephen Sobotka
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 8:24:29 pm EDT from 173.78.75.51

ANTIYONDER - Did you ever see the crossover special between the 1987 TMNT cartoon and the more recent TMNT cartoon? It had a lot of fun take-offs on the 1987 cartoon's more comedic tone (the newer Shredder and his cohorts describing the 1987 Shredder's technology as "cartoonish", the 1987 turtles having to rescue April from a giant mutant banana - which they defeat by unpeeling it, whereupon it flees in embarrassment, and the characters from the more recent series looking around in bewilderment - at one point, directly at the audience - every time the 1987 turtles break the fourth wall).
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 7:17:19 pm EDT from 4.244.213.63

Oh I enjoyed the Halloween special, but I still find that the cartoon's writing was decent.

Incidently, I wanted some imput on the 1987 TMNT cartoon. Now I sometimes wonder if the show is really is low quality or not.

Do I see the cartoon as a compeling drama? Of course not. The plots are wacky and the villains are clowns. But frankly I think that makes the series enjoyable.

I mean yeah, I can see why the Transformers cartoon and G.I Joe is critiqued. Both tried to be serious but failed due to:
A. Standards and practices.
B. Poor execution on the humor.

Ninja Turtles on the other hand (up until Season 8-10) doesn't try to pretend that it's anything more than an action/comedy.

Of course I can live with it being considered crap, but I figured that I'd give my few cents nonetheless.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 6:51:36 pm EDT from 96.239.207.177

Dude, Teddy Ruxpin is scary!

Really...

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/2205-halloween-08-special
Greg Bishansky
Demona likes Buffalo Wings.
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 6:36:34 pm EDT from 68.199.5.105

If I may ask in relation to the 80s cartoon comments, anyone here enjoy the cartoon The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin? Saw it again recently when I found the first 20 episodes on DVD at Big Lots.

I bring up this particular cartoon as it's one of the few pre-90s cartoons to have an ongoing storyline. And the thing is, at first I only picked up the set because of nostalgia (and the fact that it was being sold for $8.00). But watching it again, it still holds up as a fun show with a nice story.
Antiyonder
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 6:27:23 pm EDT from 96.239.207.177

Wing> Yeah, a lot of people don't know of the PAC/Disney connection, especially when it came to the Thundercats. Tsuguyuki Kubo was a guy who was still at Disney when I was there and still look up to this day. He's been credited as animator, animation director, character designer for some of Disney's TV stuff, but what I remember him for was he single handedly made the Thundercats opening sequence what it was. He unfortunately left before Gargoyles started, but it would have been wild to see what could have been if he had a hand in it.
Roy
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 4:20:22 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Roy-wow. never knew about the Thundercats connection. I've been a follower of animation, but Rankin-Bass were known best for their Christmas specials rather than regular TV animation. In the 60s they had stop motion show New Adventures of Pinnochio and 2D Tales of the the Wizard of Oz. In the 70s they did both the Jackson 5 and Osmonds animated shows - and a wild turn in the 80s with Thundercats and Silverhawks. There are others, but those are the ones I'm really familiar with.
Wingless
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 3:01:53 pm EDT from 99.245.254.123

Batman TAS and Gargoyles share lineage, as both were (mostly) animated in Japan. Tokyo Movie Shinsha studios animated a few series for the US, including Batman and some of Disney's own TV series. Some of their artists had a hand in Gargoyles as well, since we were all physically within the same part of the city.

Also, Gargoyles shares lineage with another famous 80's cartoon; Thundercats. Disney Studios Japan was formed after the acquisition of PAC (Pacific Animation Corporation) back in 1989 after they had finished up Silverhawks.

It was an interesting time for Japanese animation studios.
Roy
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 2:49:35 pm EDT from 216.3.125.130

Great points im not sure that it is a golden era but I think that people remember that Batman and Gargoyles were made and this created a shift in animation and what people thought u could do with it.Those two animated series are considered the two best animated series ever concieved.They were so influential even the anime craze now could not happen I think without a show like Gargoyles
andres - [escodr3s at yahoo dot com]
Andres
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 10:01:55 am EDT from 79.214.101.27

As a show, I would Gargoyles a TEN!
Anthony Tini
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 9:03:04 am EDT from 159.240.11.254

Going back to last week's discussion, while I do think there are people who look at 80s television animation through rose colored glasses and I see nothing wrong with poking some fun at that notion, I also don't feel like the 1990s was any more of a golden age for television animation. Pick any decade you want and you will more than likely find some very high quality animated shows along with some real stinkers. Depending on how you look at it, the 1980s could be the decade of The Real Ghostbusters, Gummi Bears, The Mysterious Cities of Gold, and Muppet Babies while the 90s could be blamed for the likes of James Bond Jr., Captain Planet, Fantastic Four, and Iron Man.

Gargoyles may have been a product of the 1990s, but it was also an anomaly in the 1990s. There weren't many other shows like it at the time and there still aren't many like it today. The 1990s (or roughly the 1990s, as it;s largely in our heads that everything changes when the tens digit in the rather arbitrary number designation for the year turns over) did have certain conditions that helped Gargoyles to be made. But saying that the 90s were some kind of magical decade that produced more wonderful TV animation than any other is no less silly than saying the same thing about the 80s.
Demonskrye - [<---TaleSpin at The Ink and Pixel Club]
posted @ Mon, Jun 14, 2010 8:34:52 am EDT from 146.115.115.75

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending June 21, 2010

Index : Hide Images