Add Comment  |  Previous Week  |  Text-Only Comment Room  |  Comment Room Information

TGS WebSite  |  TGS MirrorSite  |  Current Episode

Patrick: Yeah, that makes more sense. I think Andrea would need a more mature-sounding voice than Cordelia from "Buffy."

Concerning Pendragon, I like the logic behind the choice for Morgana. I think it was probably out of a desire to utilize actors from "Excalibur" (I haven't come up with a voice for young Merlin, but Nicol Williamson is perfect for Merlin in flashbacks), but when I made my own partial list of voices last year, I remember putting Gabriel Byrne down as William Powell. Now given what I know John Neville from, that's a tough call, but I'm not prepared to abandon Byrne completely. He might still fit one of the London gargoyles (except for Brock. I do remember matching him with Norman Lloyd).
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Monday, April 3, 2006 12:00:05 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Thanks, Bishansky. I'd remembered that part, but didn't think of bringing it up (maybe because Norman Dent's characterization owed far less to Two-Face).

(We did have a Two-Face reference in TGS: Pendragon, but it didn't involve Norman. It was when Mary Sefton took a look at the representation of Hel - beautiful woman on one side of her body, grotesque corpse on the other - on the Angurboda Figurine in "The Curse of Rivencroft", and commented "She looks as if she should be flipping a coin.")
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, April 2, 2006 07:38:16 PM
IP: 4.245.20.226

TODD> Not to mention that Richard Moll was the voice of Harvey "Two Face" Dent.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, April 2, 2006 07:20:57 PM
IP: 65.33.202.237

I note with amusement Richard Moll's candidacy for the voice of Norman Dent; Moll did the voice of Norman in "Mighty Max", and Norman Dent was modelled after that Norman.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, April 2, 2006 06:48:31 PM
IP: 4.245.20.226

Does this look like a message board where we care about digital cameras, cycling, and power tools?

Looks like the wishful voice cast list went through some revisions after I left TGS. Andrea has always been pegged as Helen Hunt in my mind.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
Sunday, April 2, 2006 03:16:18 PM
IP: 67.38.252.229

Harvester : I knew because I'd been paying attention to your comments early last year.
Spen
Sunday, April 2, 2006 01:04:12 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208

Bishansky: I too enjoyed reading this, though I probably should have waited, as I'm not all the way through Timedancer yet (how the hell did Spen know where I'd left off?).

I'd been mulling over Duval for a long time, but Patrick Stewart is good at playing people of authority (plus he has the added bonus of having been in the movie "Excalibur."). One of the reasons I wasn't too thrilled with seeing him in David Lynch's "Dune" was because he played a subservient character (Gurney Halleck). He's a great actor, but he's better suited to roles where he commands.

And I like William Devane. I take it the Leica Reel was something that was shown at a Gathering?
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Saturday, April 1, 2006 09:37:36 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

BISHANSKY - Thanks for the "voice-casting list"; that certainly brought back memories.

I wonder if Lucius's candidate being Christopher Lee had anything to do with the fact that my big source of inspiration for the scene in "Giants in the Earth" where Lucius tries talking Merlin into teaming up with him as partners was based on the scenes in "The Lord of the Rings" (though the book, rather than the movie; the latter hadn't even come out when I wrote that story) where Saruman makes a similar attempt with Gandalf.

(The movie did influence one scene that I'd thought of in a - since-abandoned - project that I took a stab at in 2004 of doing a sort of "Ultimate Pendragon", rewritten in a non-Gargoyles setting. In it, Arthur and Merlin's first encounter with Lucius would come at a point when Lucius had not yet teamed up with Madoc - or Madoc's equivalent in it - but was apparently just a learned, if somewhat misanthropic and cynical, scholar. In one scene, while they are talking to Lucius - whom they've come to for advice - Merlin notices an old mirror in Lucius's study and after taking a close look at it, hurriedly turns its face to the wall, explaining to the astonished Arthur and Lucius, "That mirror had a mate, and nobody knows what happened to it. So we'd better be on the safe side." And as Merlin turns the mirror to the wall, for a moment, Madoc's eyes flash in its depths.)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, April 1, 2006 07:18:43 PM
IP: 4.244.208.63

You search for tools, this site for you.
Leonid - [construction-tools@takoe.com]
New York, ME, united states
Saturday, April 1, 2006 04:24:16 PM
IP: 70.84.193.98

So, I was bored and going through my old TGS folder, and found this. An old "fantasy voice" cast for TGS. I didn't come up with all of these, a lot of them were ideas from former TGS staffers.

Damn, this thing is old. I decided to edit it into categories. Some of these people I had to IMDB to remember just who the hell they were.

Now, many of these "voices" I don't agree with, or have no opinion on. If there is a * next to a name, it's because I think it's casting made in Heaven.

GARGOYLES

GRAEME: Jeff Bennet
ARIANA: Lucy Chabert
DR. GOLDBLUM: Walter Koenig
JOANNA WALKER: Gates McFadden
SATA: Mira Furlan *
SARA JASPER: Jodi Bensen
LIZ: Sarah Michelle Gellar
LOBO: Jerry Doyle
ANDREA CALHOUN: Charisma Carpenter
RICHARD HARRISON: Nicholas Brendan
AVALLACH: Michael Ansara *
DANU: Carrie Dobro
QUINN RAMSEY: Julia Louis Dreyfuss
GILES: William B. Davis
NICOLE ST' JOHN: Dana Delaney *
JERRY PEARSON: Himself
TAMORA: Janyce Jaud *
THE BALTHAZAR: Paul Dobson *
DARIUS: Chiwetel Ejiofor *


PENDRAGON

MR. DUVAL: Patrick Stewart *
MORGANA LA FAY: Helen Mirren *
ELAINE LAKE DUVAL: Jessica Lange
NORMAN DENT: Richard Moll *
DARIEN MONTROSE: Craig Ferguson *
COLIN MARTER: Sam Neil
WILLIAM POWEL: John Neville *
LUCIUS ADRIANS: Christopher Lee *
CHAR: Eliza Dushku *
NIMUE: Gwyneth Paltrow


DARK AGES

ASRIAL: Jennifer Hale
THERSITES: Eric Idle
AGAMEMNON: Leo McKern
ROLAND: Bruce Boxleitner
ATALANTA: Claudia Christian *

TIMEDANCER

APEP: Robbie Benson *
HARTHOTH: Christopher Judge *
ISFET: Hudson Leick
SAMSON: Keith David *
DELILAH II: Salli Richardson *
GWENYVERE: Tracy Scoggins
ARTUS: Ed Asner
ANGELICA HAWKINS: Morena Baccarin *


BAD GUYS

THE DIRECTOR: William Devane (He was the Director in the Bad Guys Leica Reel)*

UNSEELIE

MADOC MORFRYN/NICHOLAS MADDOX: Tony Jay *
QUEEN MAEVE/MAVIS O'CONNOR: Bernadette Peters *
GARLON: Laurence Bain
NICHOLAS II: Julian Sands *
LOKI LAUYFEYSON: Mark Hamill *
HUIZILOPOCHTLI: Kevin Smith
THE MORRIGAN: Cristina Ricci *
RANGDA: Miranda Richardson
UMBRIEL STRIJKEN: Lorenzo Lamas
GEORGE CLARENCE HARRISON: David Boreanaz *
ZED: Seth Green
RAEL: James Marsters
RITA: Juliet Landau
CANDY: Peri Gilpin *
SEKHMET: Diane Muldar
PHOBOS: Michael Bell
DEIMOS: Alexander Siddig
CAMAZOTZ: Chris Latta

Back to studying.
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, April 1, 2006 03:55:50 PM
IP: 65.33.202.237

btw, demna iz hot. ( ;
Harvester of Eyes
Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:15:16 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

really rellyrlly.
Harvester of Eyes
Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:14:42 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

cuz iam.
Harvester of Eyes
Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:14:08 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

did i say i was srry?
Harvester of Eyes
Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:13:34 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

wellguys, i have a vry large confession to make. i wuld have done this in station 8, but it was to public to com out in. anyway, what wiyth this being the pagan new year and all, i wanted to confess that demonic lover and I are really the same person. i am truly sorry for any trouble that i've caused, especially to certain peok,e who know who they are, and i can only hope that we can get past all this uglines and get on with lif.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:12:50 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Lynati : "I honestly don’t know what is with the alliteration tonight" Snicket syndrome?

Harvester : "do you have a different suggestion for Mordred's voice?" Nope. I've never been able to think of anyone who sounds right.

Ed : "Cool review." Thanks.
RE: Arthur being overrated : I actually had that opinion long before I started reading TGS, however, I'm running out of posting time, so I can't get in-depth at the moment.
"As this wasn't really Mordred, but Arthur's subconscious fears given form, anything Arthur knows is fair game for "Mordred" to use against him." However, that doesn't really explain how Mordred could show him things like Lamorak, Algovale, and Tor's conversation, or the fight between Pellinor and Gawain.
Thanks for explaining about Elaine.

Harvester again : "(I don't know if I'll be able to do that as often while reading Timedancer, simply because I don't know how many of those story authors are still lurking here)." Well, if my memory serves me right, you've read up to "Menagerie, right? So, let's have a look at the staff page.

Todd wrote "The Downfall".
Carolynn Marie wrote "To the Soul, and "Survival". She posted a couple of times last year, so she might still be lurking. (And if she is, Happy birthday, Carolynn!)
Taleweaver wrote "Crossroads Part 1".
John Gray wrote "An Eye For An Eye". I don't think he's still around here.
Robby Bevard wrote "Trust No Future". He's one of the admins, so he's probably still here.
Anna Hanson wrote "Conspiracies". I don't think she's here.
Coyote the Bando wrote "Crossroads 2" I think he's still here.
Spen
Friday, March 31, 2006 08:51:20 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

Cycling Online Store - any saws under any tasks.
Dmitry - [cycling-store@takoe.com]
New York, ME, united states
Friday, March 31, 2006 02:49:21 AM
IP: 205.234.145.223

Happy birthday, Christine!

Real post tomorrow. (Hopefully.)
Spen
Thursday, March 30, 2006 07:40:44 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

*as dph enters the cr, the song "Thumbnail (picture) free" starts playing.*

Believe it or not, tgs has 154 thumbnail pictures in its illustration archive. (for a while, I thought I'd never get through entering all the information for those thumbnail pictures.) The total number of pictures so far is 328, and that includes all the picture information for everything up to and including Gargoyles/Pendragon Season 2. I'm kinda hoping to end up with 496 total pictures, but I'll settle with 400+ total pictures.
dph
ar, usa
Thursday, March 30, 2006 01:27:16 AM
IP: 63.232.248.163

ED - I think that part of the factor could be that the good that Arthur achieved during his reign was relatively undramatic (just rule, peace, etc.) compared to the catastrophe that brought Camelot down and the events in the early part of his reign that paved the way for that catastrophe. Arthur is most prominent in his own story during the start and the end of his reign, when the tragic events are taking place; during the middle, when the focus is more on his knights going out and having adventures, righting wrongs and hunting down robber-barons and monsters, he fades into the background.

(Note that, in a parallel case, "City of Stone" focused on the events that led to Macbeth and Demona becoming allies, and then to the break-up of their alliance, but did not show the seventeen years of peace in between when Macbeth was ruling Scotland with Demona as his "primary advisor" and there was some measure of harmony between humans and gargoyles. It's said that "a peaceful nation has no history"; you need conflict and disaster to have a story.)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 06:51:28 PM
IP: 4.244.214.192

Hi Spen. Cool review.

The thing about Arthur being overrated is interesting. I think it certainly comes across that way in TGS, which is just another reason why it's a shame that the flashbacks got crammed into the first half of season 1. He turned around decades of civil war and assassinations and unrest and created peace and relative prosperity; he introduced the rule of law, a justice system, drew allies from Europe and beyond, etc. I'm not sure that background was really prominent enough. Of course, in the Grail season, we really needed to address Arthur's sins rather than his triumphs, and Mordred's accusations needed to hit home as well.

As for your questions/comments/responses:

1. The first intermission being the one after the death of King Lot, you mean? I guess it was more a pacing thing and the fact Arthur and Mordred didn't linger there very long the first time.

2. As this wasn't really Mordred, but Arthur's subconscious fears given form, anything Arthur knows is fair game for "Mordred" to use against him.

3. I think Sybil is fairly powerful as a sorceress, but I figure she needs something to work off -- a book of spells, a microcosm, a charm up her sleeve. With her hands, literally, tied she's in difficulty. I also thought it was interesting that Arthur doesn't have any legal right to hold her and so had to let her go.

4. Yeah, Elaine's not a villain. I should have said recurring characters. Misspoke.

5. True, the finale was written before "No Mercy" so that was referenced and you can see a few things, or the beginnings of a few things, from the episode reflected in the end of the season. But as far as Season 5 goes, we were more about giving ourselves things we could pick up and run with if we wanted rather than specifically intended to have a, b and c lead to x, y and z. We'd have looked to have paid off things as we went along so that the vision would have achieved that eerie 'Future Tense' quality in hindsight.
Ed
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 06:30:19 PM
IP: 213.187.38.108

Spen: We're definitely in agreement about Mordred. Here's a guy who just screams "it's good to be bad."

And what I'd like to know is, do you have a different suggestion for Mordred's voice? Just wondering. He was actually a hard one for me. It took me until this point in the series to finally come up with it.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 05:40:28 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Digitalcameras Store - shop on sale audio video of the equipment.
Anton - [digitalcameras-store@takoe.net]
New York, NY, united states
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 03:26:24 PM
IP: 72.9.236.50

...Oh, and go see V for Vendetta. It is EXTREMELY good, and not just cause he's got the same name as me.
V
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 01:59:56 PM
IP: 205.250.215.79

Re: eyeball-sucking, face-chewing, and such inter-staff violence... It all true, I swear! What Lain and Lyn don't say is that violence is one-way; like them making a contest of hitting me with frozen seafood and co-ax cable, or setting my clothes on fire with the kerosenes and then laughing about it. It is no good, no good at all I say!

I have picture, yes! Click to see truth of life in TGS!!

*call the poooolliiiiiceee!!!*
Gunjack "Awesomely Alliterative" Valentine - [< Clicky Clicky!]
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 01:54:45 PM
IP: 205.250.215.79

SPEN - Thanks for the comments on "No Mercy". One thing that I should point out, in reference to one of your questions: It wasn't really Mordred who was serving as Arthur's visitor in the nightmares, but rather some "buried side" of Arthur that had been somehow empowered by the after-effects of Morgana's shattered spell and was taking on Mordred's form in a symbolic fashion. (Ed might be able to explain this a little better than I can; it was his idea, you see.)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 06:42:06 AM
IP: 4.244.214.238

Gah, at long last I'm actually getting around to the real post. The main reason for the delay was that on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Sunday, and Monday, I couldn't load the CR at all. And on the rare occasions that it actually loaded, I had about five minutes of posting time. Fortunately, not only the CR loading properly, but I have a couple of hours to kill. As such, I will now finally get around to:

***Comments on "No Mercy"***

Let me start by saying that this was one of my favorite episodes of the season. In a way that's rather odd, since I'm usually not very fond of Christmas Carol take-offs. (Of course, the fact that this was more about Arthur's frell-ups instead of someone not getting the "holiday spirit" probably helped it in that regard.) Also, I have a tendency to like any episode that features Mordred. (With the exception of "The Goddess of Springtime".) Another reason I liked this ep was because I somewhat agree with Mordred. No, I don't agree with him to the point of thinking that Arthur's entire legacy was a fraud, but I *do* think that Arthur is a bit on the over-rated side. And of course, another episode that manages to be extremely worrisome and yet exceedingly fun as well.

Then of course we come to Mordred himself. He's one of the most fun villains I've ever had the pleasure to read about. (And write about, if I ever go back to that Arthurian legend re-write I was working on a few years back) Like most of my favorite villains, he's usually calm, not particularly vengeance-driven, and gets the best lines. What more could you possibly ask for?

I do have a few questions about some minor details of this ep. First off, why is it that Arthur questioned Mordred about the "intermission location" the second time they went there, but not the first?

Also, how exactly did Mordred know about Merlin not making the prophecy that led to the May Day proclamation? Did he know that the man who saved him was Madoc?

There were one or two weak points in this ep: It seemed to me that Sybil came across as being a little too weak in this ep. (I mean, she couldn't even escape if they left her there? What kind of sorceress does she think she is?) Also, the end *did* seem a little abrupt. (Then again, I can't really think of any better way of ending it.)

Harvester : Thanks for the suggestion of who could play Mordred.

Ed : "apart from Elaine, Sybil was the only recurring villain we hadn't been able to find a major role for" Umm, did I miss something? Since when is Elaine a villain?
"there was never any talk of putting in specific 'foreshadowing'." Although there was one event in the finale that also happened (albeit in a different fashion) in "No Mercy".

***End comments***

DPH : "Really, Spen, what makes you so sure that tgs hasn't released 250 stories already and I didn't leave off #250 as a test?" The fact that I counted all the episodes and know that, not counting the episodes that are in two different series, TGS has released 248 eps.

Lain : "unless theres a hungry shadows 5" That's about the same thought that went through my mind after I posted that.

Lynati : "Can't we have a decent arguement here without somebody referecning genitals?" Probably not. As it is, you're not in the best position to complain about that, seeing as how you made such a reference yourself. (Granted, you were talking metaphorically, but still..)
"We just try our best to keep it out of the CR, because we're the only ones entertained by it." Eh, *I've* usually found it to be pretty entertaining.
"one of the lines spoken when you emote "flirt" in WoW when you are Undead is, "I can't wait to suck the juice from your eyeballs"." ...That settles it. If I ever get WoW I am *definitely* going to be undead. *grins, revealing four teeth that are particularly sharper then they should be* As it is, I already fit the requirements. :)

Harvester : "How could anyone suck out the juice?" Where there's a will there's a way. (Not that I'd know that first-hand of course.)

Leo : "Hey! That's a cool site!!!" I think so too.

Greg B. : "the TGS CR needs a signature option like s8" IIRC, Gorebash mentioned that this CR would have about the same add comment page as S8 one of these years.

I'd like to get into the current debate, but I've typed entirely too much, and my fingers are getting tired (hey, I spelled it correctly this time!) Maybe tomorrow. (That is, assuming DC lets me in.)
Spen
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:52:20 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

DPH: (Re: TGS S3) Actually, I was talking about the format and the level of serialisation rather than the specifics of plot.
(Re: Treasure Hunt) Bardsey Isle gave a clue as to where Merlin wasn't, and I think Nimue might have said something about it. There was a sense of the search narrowing, just not a chain of clues (in any event, for that to work you'd need to know the start of the chain -- Arthur and Griff started with nothing).

Todd: Also, we came up with the conceit of the Grail somehow testing the characters as they went along as a way of explaining why Arthur seemed to face a great moral dilemma every Tuesday...

Greg: Well, I make no commentary on DS9 generally (Oh, go on then, I think it was bland with great moments, then so-so with good moments, then great with bland moments). But I was just talking about “Duet” which is exceptionally good.
Ed
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 03:47:30 PM
IP: 213.187.38.108

I still agree with Bishansky and Lynati here. And I should point out that we were not sending Arthur on random locations when we had him searching for Merlin and the Grail. We had him go to places that had some sort of connection, if no more than legend and rumor, to Merlin or to the Holy Grail. Most of those places turned out to be dead ends, but he couldn't know for certain that they were dead ends until he went there.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 07:27:20 AM
IP: 4.244.212.78

Todd and Bishansky: Me three. I like my quests to have a nice, straightforward narrative. Unless Chris Nolan were to attempt such a story, in which case, it might work.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 06:39:39 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Ed - let's see. 98/424 = 23.11% of the initial work done, if you're right. Of course, I'm trying to hit all the pages with thumbnails 1st. I've done all the current cast pages, concepts page, and miscellaneous page. Thumbnail images occur all the way through artwork released with 1st season and through Gargoyles/Pendragon Season 2 up to "Night of the Wierd". Of course, my biggest curiosity is going to be the size of the script (number of bytes) used to create the database and do all the initial data entry. Right now, it's 61.3 kb. [For the sake of comparison, the file size for the story "The Mists of Eynhallow" is slightly bigger than that.] I get the feeling that I might end up with 100+ kb script when I finish with all the initial data entry.

In my idea, each stop along the trip where you find a clue is an adventure onto itself. That makes the journy just as important as finding what you're looking for. In the case of looking for the Holy Grail, I would argue the journy was ten times more important than finding the Holy Grail. What my idea was was that you have logical pursuit, not completely random trips, hoping to get lucky.
dph
ar, usa
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:28:56 AM
IP: 63.232.255.231

... And this goes without saying that National Treasure was a bad movie.
Greg Bishansky
Monday, March 27, 2006 10:17:13 PM
IP: 65.33.202.237

DPH: But in national treasure, the clues *were* deliberately left behind. That was pretty much the point of the movie, that the "founding fathers" had left a deliberate trail if anyone knew where to look for it. Deciding ahead of time in something like the Pen seasons that they'll maybe learn about place D while at place C is one thing, but the entire season can't follow that exact pattern. There are going to be dead ends, leads they may have previously overlooked, and perhaps even the opposition laying deliberate misleads. And there wasn't a map to follow. They didn't have something that would eventually show them just where the Grail, or Merlin, was. They only had a handful of tales to go on, some of which conflicted.
Lynati
Monday, March 27, 2006 10:08:07 PM
IP: 70.249.47.118

I agree with Todd. Sorry DPH, that does not sound like compelling story telling.
Greg Bishansky
Monday, March 27, 2006 08:34:47 PM
IP: 65.33.202.237

Todd - when was the last time you read a book about a treasure hunt? Or did you even watch the movie "National Treasure" and catch the commentary? You don't wander around aimlessly. You look for clues. Clues don't have to be deliberately left behind. It's like watching CSI; any one piece of information by itself is usually useless, but when put together, the various pieces of information points to a conclusion. At site A, you overhear a small conversation, call that clue #1. At site B, you find something out of place, that looks revelant, call that clue #2. There's a reason why treasure hunt stories are usually told a certain way. It's because that's the way detectives and treasure hunters work at. You don't wonder aimlessly from site to site hoping to find treasure. You call that childish; I call it being methodological.
dph
ar, usa
Monday, March 27, 2006 08:17:28 PM
IP: 63.232.249.47

DPH - [For the record, I think Pendragon Season 1 would have worked a lot better if it had been handled by working backwards. What do I mean? Simple, start by figuring out where Merlin was found and what clue lead King Arthur to that location. Previous story has King Arthur finding aforementioned clue at a location, but you figure out what location that clue was found at, and what clue lead King Arthur to the next-to-last location. Repeat this process of going backwards until you get to the point where King Arthur starts his quest looking for Merlin.]

That sounds a little too cold and lifeless to me, more appropriate for a computer program than for storytelling. Also, who'd be setting up the clues for Arthur and Griff to find as if searching for Merlin was like a children's "treasure hunt" game?

The impression that I got (from what Greg Weisman hinted about it) was that it would be, at least initially, Arthur and Griff just investigating all the places directly associated with Merlin, particularly the various likely suspects for the site of his departure (whether his imprisonment by Nimue or something else), and then spreading out to less obvious locations once those ran dry. And a few of the stories could have been about Arthur and Griff running into an adventure on the way to a Merlin-linked location, to keep things from getting too "same old, same old".
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, March 27, 2006 07:15:40 PM
IP: 4.244.18.125

GXB - <Because the TGS CR needs a signature option like s8)> Talk to Gorebash about making it easier for the people who maintain tgs cr information to update the code that runs the tgs cr.

For the trivia minded, there are 60 pieces of artwork (counting thumbnails as separate pictures) in the current cast pages in the tgs illustration archive.

For the record, I think Pendragon Season 1 would have worked a lot better if it had been handled by working backwards. What do I mean? Simple, start by figuring out where Merlin was found and what clue lead King Arthur to that location. Previous story has King Arthur finding aforementioned clue at a location, but you figure out what location that clue was found at, and what clue lead King Arthur to the next-to-last location. Repeat this process of going backwards until you get to the point where King Arthur starts his quest looking for Merlin.

Ed - <Maybe now, but not that much by Season 3> You're wrong. The way things ended in Season 1, any active anti-Gargoyles group would be pretty much viewed with suspicion by the police for fear of the group going violent. The Second Unseelie War really warped tgs's universe - specifically things in the present day. It would be hard to justify that Madoc didn't locate every active gargoyle clan or every place where humans were still practicing magic in the present day given his motivations and his resources (he managed to find New Olympus, afterall).
dph
ar, usa
Monday, March 27, 2006 06:54:00 PM
IP: 63.232.250.144

ED> <<Which is great, but meanwhile you have stuff like the David Gerrold episode, or "Duet" on DS9 which for my money beats up even the absolute best B5 episodes and steals their lunch money.>>

I'll have to write a real response later, after I've processed this.

Sorry, but I hate DS9 so much.
Greg Bishansky
Monday, March 27, 2006 01:44:45 PM
IP: 65.33.202.237

Lynati: (Re: Buffy/Angel) We did have references, phone calls, a crossover event, shared villains, shared heroes, shared guests, shared storyline elements, etc. Example by example, I think you'd be pressed to find a fraction of the crossover elements in Buffy & Angel that we had in Pendragon.

(Re: BG & Pendragon breakdowns) Actually, I did look at the Bad Guys outlines, and was at one point on the BG list. I wrote two BG drafts. I tried very hard to get the information I could. If it was there, it was very well hidden. But I think it was all discussed off-list on AIM or whatever and not fed back. Which is okay, but all the Pendragon discussions were conducted in the open, all the drafts were up. Nothing we ever did was hidden. It was all in the public arena.

(Re: Death) Our concerns weren't what to show and what not, but purely how the emotional impact of the death will affect our story. After three seasons which ended with mixed successes and dark omens, we wanted to do a strong, positive climax that would built momentum and excitement for the story to come. That seemed appropriate for the Grail season. I agree that Gargoyles had been timid in killing characters before -- and S4 did contain at least one pretty major death which I remember outlining (can't remember who pitched it).

(Re: Season 5) It'll be late 2003 on the Pendragon list. I did come across a list of story ideas in a notebook the other day. If you drop me your e-mail address, I'll try and pass on what I remember.

(Re: Foreshadowing) Certainly one incident Todd reminded me of was teetering around such a massive revelation that I don't think it's really the sort of thing that should have been featured in an entirely different series.

(Re: TGS Gargs has evolved a bit away from that) Maybe now, but not that much by Season 3 -- and nothing that couldn't be fixed. I think structurally the original show gives a good example of how to tell stories with a tapestry like this. Goliath is the prism through which most stories are told and each season develops stories on lots of different fronts. I don't think spreading things out over the long term is necessarily an answer in itself (and I do greatly admire Weisman's economy of storytelling, very lean and fat free). But this is just a point of view thing really.

(Re: story beating) You have access to the archives, look for yourself. I'd say it was fairly rare for first-draft outlines to be deconstructed in any substantial way, certainly with more than a handful of people involved. There was talk about titles, or in-story dates, bits around the edges or what have you.

(Re: the Milano story) Well, I'm a bit sorry you've changed it, but I look forward to seeing what it's become and I hope it works better. I don't agree it was rushed though, any more than -- say -- "Revelations" was rushed in the original series, or "Ill Met By Moonlight", or "Double Jeopardy", or what have you. The reasoning you're looking for was contained within the outline: the opening scene explains Goliath's attitude. As for stretching it across the season... well, for one, I was reworking the single episode which already had its slot so I didn't feel inclined to redo the whole season. But even then... sometimes episodes stand alone. I'd rather go into depth with something in an episode and then focus on something else the next episode than having lots of stuff in the air all at once and hoping it all falls into place. Also, the narrow time frame, the narrow range of characters was designed to make the story more intense and emotionally compelling. Anyway, best of luck with the new version, if there is one.

(Re: Not enough London clan) I'm less sure they were *that* popular, but even if they were, I think it's best to tell the story you're passionate about telling, not the story that makes character quota.

(Re: Early Pendragon) I think there are things I'd do differently with all the seasons, especially G/P2 which seemed too Madoc-centric to me, T4 for obvious reasons, P1 for doing too many flashbacks too quickly and too baldly, and so on. But I didn't work on those series, and they have great stuff going on there too. Heck, there's plenty things I'd do differently with P4, but I'm not big on Monday morning quarterbacking anyway.

(Re: Sorkin) True. But he told great, usually consistent stories, where things built and developed beautifully. And sometimes, people chucked him curveballs. Richard Schiff wore a wedding ring for the role. Sorkin said, why, he didn't think Toby was married. Schiff said, yeah, but you're going to write to explain why. But for collaborative, successful serialised dramas which fly close to the wire, I give you "Murder One" (they decided the murderer in the penultimate episode), "24" (they decided the mole for season 1 around episode 14) and later "Deep Space Nine" -- shows much more serialised than TGS has ever been, featuring 6 or 10 part stories. "Angel", "Buffy" with a few exceptions, focused mostly on the season in hand -- I recall an interview with Joss Whedon when he mentioned that only once did he really drop something in that referred far ahead (a hint at Buffy's death in the S3 finale).

Of course, with TGS you can make the season in hand all come together because it's all outlined and, usually, all written before it's released. I think working out a season at a time, resolving all the questions raised in that season, and maybe leaving just one or two open threads and an open-ended point of closure is the responsible way to write in this kind of collaborative venture. This way the next season starts off with a fairly clean slate but still a sense of momentum. If you need to wait more than a season for the other shoe to drop... well, how many members of the current TGS staff can claim that they've been on board for TWO seasons of any of the series? (i.e. since 2000). I'd guess the number would be low...

Todd: I recall pitching Abraham/Isaac although you actually suggested the 'twist'. I saw the White Knight as representing lust, although his sin was in the past.

Greg: I agree that the conversation is pretty interesting. :)

I like B5. I think JMS's stuff (judging from B5 and ASM which I've been immensely disappointed by after a gangbuster start) tends towards the anti-climactic, but there's some great material when he's on form. Since I left TGS, I watched the whole thing through for the first time, and what struck me -- having heard about how his master plan was meant to make for such clean, joined-up storytelling -- was how much wasn't wrapped up at all. Bester's partner, David's keeper, Garibaldi's revenge, the Telepath war, the Drakh's master plan, etc. Some of it got open-ended closure, and I realise there are books and spin-offs and films and whatever else, but a good deal was just sort of left there. And the first season was pretty tepid. Sure, you say, but it's setting stuff up. Which is great, but meanwhile you have stuff like the David Gerrold episode, or "Duet" on DS9 which for my money beats up even the absolute best B5 episodes and steals their lunch money. Ultimately, having a reference about raiders or what have you paying off four years later is gratifying, or the big Valen twist getting paid off is brilliant, like the pay-off of a good Sherlock Holmes story, but to me that's still a stunt. It's a writer's trick, one that can be used very well, but it's a part of the toolbox, not the extent of the toolbox. JMS's own "Intersections in Real Time" doesn't really pay anything off specifically, but it's still (for me) his greatest achievement on the show. "Duet", Sorkin's "Two Cathedrals", Mason and Chapelle's final episodes on '24': great drama, with characters in the moment, reacting and changing.

Anyway, the G'Kar/Londo vision is textbook set-up/pay-off, only with the twist that the pay-off is the set-up and the set-up is the pay-off. It's nothing to do with the journey there, it's about setting something up and knocking it down. If you switched the episodes around, it wouldn't work. 24's first season sets up that there's a mole in CTU early on. The last cliffhanger reveals who it is. Murder One starts off with a character murdered. The season finale shows who the murderer is. These last examples were cases where the writers made their choice late in the day. If JMS had only decided while writing "War Without End" that G'Kar should be a friend not a foe of Londo's, would it have affected the plot? No, because it's entirely consistent with what's gone before, just with a twist. But you can still twist things you've shown before to mean something else. As long as it's consistent.

But in any event, JMS wrote almost the whole of B5: he knew when he wrote the set-up, he'd be around to write the pay-off. In TGS, it's pretty rare for writers to stick around long enough to write multiple seasons. Besides, if it was true that the journey was as important as the end point, then it wouldn't matter if you spoilt an ending. You could just say, "well, hey, there's still the getting there that's exciting." Well, someone spoilt me on the ending of the last Harry Potter book as I was a couple of chapters in. It was okay, and I could see the build-up to the climax, but it wasn't as satisfying as I'm sure it would have been if the thing was a surprise. Hitchcock revolutionised cinemas by insisting that people only be allowed into 'Psycho' at the beginning, rather than just wondering into the picture house at any old point as had been the custom in the past. He knew that the set-up and the pay-off had to come in a particular order to carry the punch he wanted. Sticking to the bird in the hand, the season in hand, doesn't limit the options for writers who come along later in the way complex multi-season foreshadowing does. And it means that the writers who set it up can pay it off as intended, tell the story they're passionate about -- good stories, well told, as Robert McKee puts it.
Ed
Monday, March 27, 2006 12:32:27 PM
IP: 213.187.38.108

Boy, am I ever enjoying reading these discussions. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I probably shouldn't even be stepping in, but I can't resist.

Surprise, surprise, I agree with Lynati.

Ed, I still remember something you said that I seriously disagreed with. I did then, and I still do now. When you said "you can have foreshadowing without knowing what's going to happen."

Personally, I don't see how that is at all possible. Of course, I went to the J. Michael Straczynski School of Writing... and no where would I ever claim to be anywhere coming close to being light years away from being as good as he is. But, when he planned out all five seasons of "Babylon 5" literally years before the series even aired, it did nothing but help the show. To the point where watching it all the way through for the second time is even more rewarding than the first time. JMS is another writer who beats the crap out of any of us, and I would kill for a chance to do my own multi-season novel for television.

Okay, I'm rambling. But I think there is something awesome about a line of dialogue in season one paying off in season three. Or a scene in season two paying off in season five.

I can't comment on Sorkin as I have only just purchased the first season of "The West Wing" and seen the first four episodes (after seeing Robby, Lynati and Mara rave about it, I wanted to see what the fuss was all about :)), but I can tell I'm going to like it.

Granted I'm not a member of TGS anymore, so this is mostly moot. Considering my school schedual, I wouldn't have the time to stay on anyway, and most of my free time these days is directed towards helping this year's Gathering. But, the TGS Staff knows (I hope) that if they ever need notes or outlines on stuff I planned for TGS, I will happily provide them. I know how frustrating it is when a plot point is created and it's creator disappears.

But one thing I did learn at the school of JMS was that the outcome is not as important as the journey itself. Take "City of Stone" for example. We know where Demona and Macbeth will end up by the time the flashbacks are over. But that doesn't make it all any less dramatic and compelling. We know that it's Macbeth wearing the mask of the Hunter, but the big mystery isn't "who is the Hunter" it is "why is Macbeth wearing this mask?"

Back to Babylon 5, thanks to Sheridan's flash forward in time in "War Without End", we know that Londo Mollari becomes Emperor of the Centauri Republic. We know he has a Keeper on his shoulder forcing him to do the bidding of the servants of the Shadows... hell, because of that flash forward, we learn that the Shadows are driven off, and that Sheridan and Delenn do get together and have a son, and that together they built something spectacular that will endure (the Interstellar Alliance)... and we know that Londo and G'Kar eventually become friends after years of despising each other.

Half way through the series, we know exactly where they will be at their ends... but, we don't know why. What brought them there? What happened?

"I have been waiting to arrive at some kind of final destination, but life is about the discoveries made on the journey itself. And though the road has been hard, I have no regrets about the path we have chosen."
- Goliath "The Journey" (Because the TGS CR needs a signature option like s8)
Greg Bishansky
Monday, March 27, 2006 10:07:08 AM
IP: 65.33.202.237

Quetzalcoatl? Did I miss something?

LYNATI - The only thing approaching allegory that I can think of in Pendragon Season 4 was the Seven Deadly Sins element that you mentioned. It was something that I found myself discovering as we progressed on the season, and in light of the focus (the Holy Grail), it seemed appropriate to me. Here's the list:

* WARNING FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T FINISHED PENDRAGON SEASON 4 AS YET - SPOILERS FOLLOW *

PRIDE: Lucius Adrians
ENVY: Singleton
AVARICE: Darien Montrose
WRATH: Morgana
SLOTH: Sekhmet (In her case, it was sloth more in the original medieval sense, not so much laziness as a despairing apathy)
GLUTTONY: Wolf
LUST: This was the only one that we didn't quite crack, but Ed made the good suggestion that it could be represented by Nyctimus in "Preservation", given his rather shallow attraction to Mary - and being willing to distance himself from her the moment that he finds out that she's a werewolf due to fear of "being outed".

* SPOILERS END *

I'm interested to hear that you're currently working on "Crossover"; I have a soft spot for that story still, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it'll turn out.

One or two other comments about "Pendragon" (admittedly, I've been sitting out the discussion); Ed did indeed work out a general plan for Season 5, including Arthur's new base of operations and some ideas for stories. I don't know if he still has it or not; at worst, we can reconstruct it from memory and e-mail it to the TGS staff.

From the benefit of hindsight, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Season One of "Pendragon" being too flashback-heavy, and especially at the expense of the present-day scenes. If I could do it all over again, I would be likely to handle them more in this way:

1. The flashbacks would be spread out more evenly, and be made more a means of illumining Arthur's backstory (and the backstories of the other survivors such as Merlin, Morgana, and Duval) than telling the legend for its own sake (the big mistake that Season One made, IMO). In particular, I would have made the revelation of Merlin's parentage a more gradual process (in retrospect, I think that we gave too much away in "The Last Enchantment"). Just start out describing Merlin as just Arthur's wizardly advisor, then mention a few episodes later about his being a "halfling", then maybe having Arthur finding some old writings of Blaise (Merlin's tutor) that indicated that there was something ominous about Merlin's Third Race father, and save the full revelation for the season finale when Arthur found Merlin only to discover that he'd led Madoc to him in the process.

2. If I were doing it all over again, I'd have also probably followed the original legends a bit less closely - preserved the basics in them, yes, but treated them more the way that "City of Stone" treated Macbeth's life-story in both history and Shakespeare, turning Arthur's life into something more specifically "the TGS take on the Arthurian cycle", rather than just a retelling of the "Malory take". This way, Arthur might have been more approachable for the TGS staff; one of the problems that we had, I recall, was that people would say "I'm sorry that I can't help with 'Pendragon', but I don't know anything about King Arthur other than having seen 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'." A more TGS-specific version of the Arthurian legend could have solved that problem. (Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, ever felt similarly intimidated by Macbeth, since "City of Stone" had so vividly handled his backstory that you didn't feel that you had to be an expert on 11th century Scottish history to write about him. It turned even the obscure figures of Macbeth's history into full-fledged and memorable characters; nobody who saw that multi-parter had any trouble grasping the essence of Gillecomgain, say, or Bodhe. Of course, "City of Stone" probably also led a lot of "Gargoyles" fans to read up about the actual Macbeth as well.) For example, I would have explored the interactions between Arthur and the gargoyles of his original reign (including the clan that would be the ancestors of Leo, Una, Griff and the rest). (I had a few individual ideas here and there; one that I made a passing allusion to in "Fata Morgana" was a take on a tale found in both Chretien de Troyes and the Mabinogion about how one of Arthur's knights, a figure variously known as Yvain, Uwaine, or Owain - possibly even Owen - who was Morgana's son, by the way, befriended a lion and how the two of them had many adventures together. My idea was that the "lion" was really a lion-like gargoyle like Leo.)

Well, that's moot now. But at least I may have learned from this to help me with future projects. Thanks for your comments here, Lynati.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, March 27, 2006 08:17:31 AM
IP: 4.244.211.41

DPH: Quetzalcoatl. o.O
Lynati
Monday, March 27, 2006 03:38:17 AM
IP: 70.243.67.147

Just to add a little bit. At the point of Pendragon Season 4 discussion was going on and Bad Guys discussion was going on, as my memory recalls, there were only *2* members who were on both mailing lists and hypothetically receiving emails from both discussions. One of them was seriously occupied with other things. The other person was . . is . . me. Left hand and Right hand in deed. Even if one had been paying attention to both lists (as I was), at the time, it would have been hard to connect the dots.
dph
ar, usa
Monday, March 27, 2006 02:49:53 AM
IP: 63.232.250.69

Another uber response to Ed...well, at least the CR is talking about TGS again.

I’ll go in reverse. ["you did this, and I'd rather have seen this."] Yeah, pretty much. And I had some issues with the writing itself in many places, but that’s even more in the realm of personal preference. To a degree it has become moot- the stories are already released, and you’re working on something entirely different. And much of it…well, you’re not likely to find criticism on the breakdowns of stories to be constructive if they were exactly what you were going for. Since I have to re-read Pen 4 anyway to make sure Crossover doesn’t contradict anything, I’ll see about maybe joining in on some of the other’s ep reviews if I have the time, and anything useful to add.

3) “Individuality” That’s understandable. But Angel still tied into the Buffy world at times, even if it was just in little things like phone calls to the scoobies (and Buffy did the same with Angel cast members). It didn’t relieve the show of its different fingerprint, and it served as a fun and sensible reminder that it was part of a greater mythos.
And I’m going to assume you mean Pen Season 3, and not TGC. o.o I liked Pen 3 a lot as well.

2) “Focus” [To be honest, giving meaningful stories to the 'Pendragon' extended cast of several dozen was enough -- going further would be a bit too far.] Yeah, I can so totally sympathize with that right now. We got so much going on in season 4 with so many people, sometimes we have to pull back and remind ourselves that Goliath and Elisa are supposed to be the main focus, and that the other characters can have plenty of development without being the center of an episode.

1) “Fair Play” [we almost always seemed to learn in the week of release that we'd messed up something for someone else.] That was one problem I noticed too late to do anything about- aside from the fact it was going on before I came on staff- was that the left hand of Pendragon and the right hand of Bad Guys didn’t know what the other was doing. Both of you had your outlines up, and neither group from what I can tell went to see what the other had planned. I know Lain is upset that the Pen 4 stories screwed up some of her and GJ’s plans for BG, and she says that you should have taken a look at the BG ideas rather than make assumptions that everything you did in Pen 4 was without impact on them…but it seems to me that she could have done the same early on, and gone to look at Pen to see if there might be conflicts. Either each side missed that the other might be encroaching on their plans when they were being discussed on-list, or no one conceived that the other side would do something that might be a problem, and so never rousted themselves to look until it was too late to discuss the possibility of making changes. Pen was released, and BG had to put on a new track any plans that Pendragon unknowingly had derailed. Frankly, I think the BG season has become stronger for that. And I’m not unaware of the irony that half of the “problems” came from when you guys were engaging Pendragon with the rest of the TGS world, since I keep saying there ought to have been more.

I do agree that Pen 4 was safe as compared to much of the plans for Gar 4, and that isn’t a bad thing. Choosing to make a season massively complex in places isn’t a picnic, either, and being reminded that some things can be simpler has helped a couple of the recent outlines. “Does this need more? …naw, it’s fine how it is.” Sometimes its nice to keep it “safe”. On the other hand, when it comes to death, Gargoyles has quite the history of not-quite-on-screen kills. Clan Wyvern, The Guard Captain and Hakon, Demona’s victims in both the past-time and present-day events in City of Stone and half her clan in the former, King Kenneth, The Magus, The Archmage, Findlaech, Gillecomgain, Duncan… Gargoyles is a show about “unnatural” characters and occurances, but it is still based in reality- which is the reason so many people loved it. There wasn’t always a Deus Ex Machina to save the day for our heroes; sometimes they took mortal blows, both to body and spirit, and bled. Now we’ve got a fistful of amoral, bloodthirsty villains, many who have their sites locked on the clan, and nobody’s luck is good enough to escape every trap without a scratch 100% of the time. Death is a part of life, and we don’t have to make a show out of it for it to have impact. Any deaths that appear over the next two seasons are not just the staff making up for how bloodless the SUW was for our main and secondary characters, where the losses on the “bad side” (Umbriel, George) evoked a more immediate emotional response than the losses on the “good side” (Sora, Drake, Aper, Lance) as we barely knew the characters who died. If they happen, it’ll just be in the course of the growth of the season.

[And frankly, we couldn't ever really go crazy because we knew that the Season 5 and 6 were locked in, the Season 4 plans were always pretty tightly focused. If someone had said, "Know what? Let's scrap the whole lot and rebuild from first principles" I'd have been delighted. But the finale was outlined, and I was coming in mid-flow.]
Well, that *is* what we decided to do. We decided not to consider any of Season 4 –or 5- plans to be locked down- not even the finale for season 4. We’ve taken every episode to task, peeling the outlines down to bare bones and building them back up. That’s not to say all the early work done on it was wasted- often times a fair amount of the original outline wound up in the redraft. Certainly most of the basic ideas were kept, sometimes in altered form. I tried to keep as much of the original “Crossover” intact as I could- it’s the one I’ve been working on- at least in tone, general events, and character roles. And as I said earlier, I’m going to re-read Pen 4 myself and make sure the details (and big picture) fit in with that season’s continuity.

And where are the Pen 5 season notes? I would like to see them, have them on hand for if Gar 5 is ever written. (And yes, I do seem to be quite into the twisty-complex plots recently. It’s hard to write Thailog without them. ; ) For that matter, is there a, hm, comprehensive page about the seven sins = characters and the other…allegories?

[We used a different tool.] I guess I can’t disagree with that. It was a different approach – and certainly an equally valid one- than the one we are taking with Gargoyles. [In terms of episode structure, I think we were pretty close to 'Gargoyles'.] And TGS Gargs has evolved a bit away from that. [Apart from the question, how do you know there'll *be* a next season, I say: and what does that mean for the story?] We’re not adding people in just for potential future use; we do take the same considerations as to what they mean for the current story. Just sometimes, we wonder what they mean to the future as well. And we don’t know there is going to be a fifth season *released*. We’d certainly like to get to do so, to see how it grows into fruition, but RL may rise up and smash that desire into dust. But considering the foundation work we’ve laid down for it, it ought to be easier to pick up and run with that Season 4 has been.

[But if you believed in doing a story a different way, you could have come up with a coherent different way, you could have challenged the characterization, you could have challenged the flow of the story, the concept, the season pace; bring ideas, suggest changes, show your own proposals.] Not that it at all happened quickly, but that *is* what wound up happening with season 4. Getting responses on the list back then was like pulling teeth, so we started up group AIM chats instead. Even then, I found it useful for my own ideas to present them to someone one-on-one, get imput, make changes, show the new draft and if person A agreed that the concept seemed more sound, we’d take it to a third party and ask them for more feedback.

[Sorry, there was almost no beating of stories.] None at all? There was no discussion of what people wanted to do with a story before the outline for it was created? The entire 22 outlines just…happened, all at the same time?

[There was, occasionally, "let's add in an Easter Egg".] I don’t think those were easter eggs, I think those were plot points or foreshadowing. There is a difference.

[I'm still not sure what it has to do with telling the story of the day, making it meaningful, giving insight to character.] I would say it was the writer’s job to find a way make it meaningful, whether as an interesting and fitting conversational gambit, or as a device to, say, start the character on a path where we could see them learn or grow…or miss the opportunity to do so. [and even then, people's response will simply be, at best, "ha. Nifty."] At best, my reaction to the right drop-ins has been far more energetic than that. Especially when I think I’ve just been shown something that the characters haven’t realized yet, a window on a possible future. Are the writers going to do what I think they are? Or are they going to surprise me? What does it mean not only for the characters in the immediate area, but the ones we suspect it involves on the other side of the world, or time? Is it just a red herring, or possibly a throw-away line in the truest sense? Who says the very Egg can’t be part of a “joke”, or a way to introduce the immediate characters to action or insight?

[Then this nice tie-in could be a pain the backside for the new writers who come along….Easter Eggs are basically continuity stocktaking which is okay if all goes to plan, but... when has that ever happened?]
I don’t characterize them that way. If they were only stocktaking, they wouldn’t be interesting- what makes them fun is the unexpected “revelation” they give. And yes, I agree that deliberate attempts at foreshadowing can cause writers problems, along with those who left without informing the rest of the staff about out the intended outcome for an already-introduced plot. The new secure site includes a notes section for each story in the works; if you have a plot you want to see that is long term and want to see it done to your specs, the best way is to stay on board. Even if you have full intent to do so, if your plot has ramifications that are intended to be revealed over time, write down what they were supposed to be. That way the future writers know what was intended, and it puts the set-up elements into context instead of leaving them a confusing mire that others may later have to wade through. Now, whether future writers use your intended plot or go, “naw, let’s do THIS instead”, is another story. (No pun intended.)

[I remember one instance where I posted a Dr Milano outline, you commented on how an early scene was too close to a later plan about Brooklyn, I made appropriate amendments to that, and in your reply you said, "hey, did you add all that to the end of the outline? It's quite good."] Aha! Proof that occasionally do give positive feedback! ; ) Actually, that reminds me of the main problem I had with the alpha outlines for Gar 4. As individual stories, they could be commented on, made to work; but in the context of a season most made no sense. The story that Milano appeared in was one of the prime examples of this- the story utterly broke down for me when I took a step back and looked at it. Among the problems I had with it were that I couldn’t see Goliath allowing himself to be treated like a guinea pig by a man he just met, or why the battery of tests he was to run through would occur during a meeting that was meant to simply establish trust. Wouldn’t the trust have to come first, before he’d be willing to submit to said tests? It seemed rushed; compacted down to fit into a single story. Milano seemed to be wasting a golden opportunity on an afternoon’s gratification. His very characterization indicated that he was smarter than that. But again, it seems…moot for me to sit here and whinge about it, especially since we already made adjustments. Some of the plots do well when they are confined to a single story. Others really need to be let out of the box to run rampant across the season if their potential is to be done justice.

[As you know, we'd already started to turn to Season 5 and looked at assimilating some of the clan into the main group of Arthur's knights/squires.] Didn’t know that, actually. I wasn’t on the Pendragon discussion list, only the Gargoyles one. I don’t recall there being much discussion of Pen future plans *there* at the time I joined up, although at the time I was mostly occupied trying to figure out what was supposed to be going on throughout season 4 so I could give feedback on those outlines.

[I happen to believe it was a mistake to make the clan so prominent.] I happen to agree with that, but probably not quite to the same degree. The problem was, they had already been made so prominent, and it seemed like they were toned down awful fast. On second reading, they are getting a little more by way of cameos than I recalled, and I can understand not wanting to perpetuate a perceived mistake by keeping them in prominent positions. Unintended alliteration is my friend? Anyway. I think a lot of people wanted to see more of them, and expected to see them to the degree they’d been present in previous stories, and not having that is a let-down to those people.

[You assert that we didn't make Arthur more interesting -- I disagree that he was uninteresting in the first place. He was just a back-passenger in his own series.] That might be a more fair depiction of the problem, after all, Pen 1 was mostly memorable (to me) for the flashbacks and how they were relevant to the present day than for solely what was going on with Arthur in the present. The present day events, as admitted by their authors, more often than not served more as a framework with which to tell the history. I liked that aspect myself, but wish that it could have been done with a little more balance. Not have had every one of the first half of the season been of that variety, spread them out over the whole season and into the Third Season, if not the second, as Pendragon 2 took a backseat to Gar 2 in the combined Unseelie War arc and the flavors in this case did seem to merge. Arguments could be made over if this approach made it more successful / interesting than if effort had been made to keep the Pendragon aspects and storytelling modes stronger- two seasons telling a joined story in their own way rather than two seasons joined. It would only be speculation, of course, since we don’t have an example of the second to make a comparison with.


As for Sorkin…well, aside from being a genius, he also had sole control of the characters and stories (at least throughout the first two seasons). He had people to run his ideas by, but in the end it was his choice what to do with them. TGS isn’t set up that way. It’s supposed to be a group game, not one person’s personal playground. (I’m sorry, I honestly don’t know what is with the alliteration tonight.) It also potentially could be attributed to the use of Psilocyben mushrooms and cocaine during his personal creative process, not that I am in away way advocating drug use. I’m just making note of a historical fact that a number of quite talented artists and writers claimed that hallucinogens/opiates/alcohol did allow them to get in touch with a greater “creative power”- and in the cases of those people I try not to hold it against them.

Lynati "How the crap did it get to be almost 5 pages long??" Kshudra
Monday, March 27, 2006 01:11:43 AM
IP: 70.243.67.147

Spen> Hey! That's a cool site!!!
Leo
Monday, March 27, 2006 12:39:35 AM
IP: 68.107.154.71

Harvester of Eyes-
jillcat: in the city is 4am
jillcat: in Rochester was 2am

I'm now taking a break from writing to go work on my response to Ed and to chew on Gunjack.
Lynati
Sunday, March 26, 2006 08:48:34 PM
IP: 70.243.67.147

I have a quick technical question: can anyone here from New York tell me what time last call is for most bars in the state?
Harvester of Eyes
Sunday, March 26, 2006 04:13:57 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Wow. I made the terrible, terrible mistake of watching the movie "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" this weekend. I recently heard a cover of my favorite Beatles song, "Dear Prudence," that I thought was terrible (I can't remember who did it, simply that it came out in 1984). But after hearing the way the Beatles's material was treated in this movie, I think that cover was outstanding by comparison. I've never had anything personal against George Burns, but now I hope that he's in hell. And I hope that Maurice Gibb is with him, and that Peter Frampton joins them soon.

But I also pre-ordered the 2-Disc DVD of "King Kong" this weekend, which was surprisingly cheap for two discs. Cheap enough so that I also ordered a CD that's been on my list for over a year. So this past Friday wasn't completely horrendous.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Sunday, March 26, 2006 11:47:37 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

DPH : Here you go. Just type in the URL for the GFW, click on the oldest date, and go to the old TGS site.
Spen
Sunday, March 26, 2006 02:24:30 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208

Spen - <As it is, I don't have a compiled list of the TGS staff, I just found that due to an interesting web site called "the WAYBAC machine". > Can you provide a link to "the WAYBAC machine"?
dph
ar, usa
Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:18:37 AM
IP: 63.232.250.130

DPH- sorry my friend, but we are planning to take the low road this round. Will be probably driving out to San Antonio and road tripping from there.
Revel
Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:27:32 PM
IP: 70.185.6.104

DPH : Actually, I don't have AIM or MSN messenger, or any other such device. And I don't really have a working e-mail address either. As it is, I don't have a compiled list of the TGS staff, I just found that due to an interesting web site called "the WAYBAC machine".

Hey Lain, I guess I did stick around and make more posts. I've been here for slightly over a year now.
Spen
Saturday, March 25, 2006 04:21:16 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208

Ed - What prize? Right now, I'm trying to do data entry to put a complete list of all artwork publically released by tgs into a database.

Lady Mystic - Speaking of that, could you help me identify which pictures in the tgs public illustration archive (http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/art) are the ones used in the tgs cr? That's one of the fields in my table, and I'm at a loss for figuring out which ones are.

Spen - <About that list of TGS staff members: I found a few people who apperently never contributed anything, but were on the staff nontheless. > Wow. If you have that list compiled of staffers compiled (no duplicates), please email it to Lynati or me. Wait. You can't email me because my email address isn't listed in this area. Just send it to me through aim (dphofrules1) if you have it. I have a prize waiting if non-current tgsstaffer gives me that info.

Oh, I booked my flights for the Gathering today. Yea. Now, if I could just find a couple of roommates.

Revel - You going to be leaving to go to the Gathering on June 23 from Dallas? If so, we might bump into each other at the airport.

That leaves me with my thought for the day: where in heck do I keep the stuff I need when I get to the airport to get my actual ticket. Me, disorganized? Yea, irl. My computer files aren't, though.

Oh yea, one of my female felines lost some weight and I expect I'll be feeding my cats more often.
dph
ar, usa
Saturday, March 25, 2006 03:37:27 AM
IP: 63.232.250.19

Oops, didn't mean to have that quotation mark there, I just pressed two buttons at once. Sorry for the double post.
Spen
Thursday, March 23, 2006 07:29:04 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

DPH : Nah, you didn't scare me away. A certain hacker named Mr. Dis Connect has been doing a great job of that.'

Real post later.
Spen
Thursday, March 23, 2006 07:27:57 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

Harvester: Sure -- link below. The idea of Todd's was to identify the title character of the poem as a character from the original series, and the incident described in the poem as an important canonical turning point. Which left one other character from the poem to bring in -- the White Knight.

DPH: Is this like the "guess how many beans in the jar?" competitions you get at fetes? I'm going to guess... 424. (What's the prize? :))
Ed
Taunton, England
Thursday, March 23, 2006 07:19:25 PM
IP: 213.187.38.108

Spen - If I scared you away with my last post, I'm osrry. I'm genuinely interested.

For non-tgsstaffers: Does anybody want to speculate on how many pieces of artwork tgs has released over the years? (No, I don't knkow the answer yet) Does anybody actually care when the artwork was released or just the fact that artwork was released matter?
dph
ar, usa
Thursday, March 23, 2006 05:30:06 PM
IP: 63.232.250.96

HARVESTER - Who knows? Maybe the Illuminati thought that Nigel's anti-gargoyle crusade could be useful to them - channel the human race's aggression towards a non-human species as a way of uniting it. Remember, also, that Arthur's critical facilities were probably partly suspended at the time; it was a nightmare that he was having, not waking life.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, March 23, 2006 07:41:48 AM
IP: 4.244.212.237

Lynati: How could anyone suck out the juice? They're no good if you do that. Besides, it makes a better marinade.

Todd: One of my reasons for originally bringing up the Illuminati in relation to "Future Tense" is because I made a similar parallel in "No Mercy" when Mordred was showing Arthur the future. Namely, if Mary had been killed in such a fashion, I wondered how much influence the Society would allow Nigel to have on the rest of the world. We may not understand the Illuminati's reasons for funding the Quarrymen, but I also think it would somehow be counterproductive to their purposes if the gargoyles were to be wiped out.

In any case, I hope Spen finds time to post soon. I myself am curious to get his thoughts on the story.


Ed: This is actually relating back to last week, but I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of this poem about the White Knight that you mentioned.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Thursday, March 23, 2006 06:46:30 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

LYNATI - [Aaand lain and Gunjack and I have pretty much always been this violent with eachother, like when I shapechanged on AIM last week and ate GJ's face off. We just try our best to keep it out of the CR, because we're the only ones entertained by it.]

No arguments here. :)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, March 23, 2006 06:37:26 AM
IP: 4.244.210.188

Still typing stuff. On a roll with my current project, but I will get back to my response later.

Aaand lain and Gunjack and I have pretty much always been this violent with eachother, like when I shapechanged on AIM last week and ate GJ's face off. We just try our best to keep it out of the CR, because we're the only ones entertained by it.

oh, hey, Gunjack. That reminds me. According to Aaron, one of the lines spoken when you emote "flirt" in WoW when you are Undead is, "I can't wait to suck the juice from your eyeballs". XD
Lynati
Thursday, March 23, 2006 02:13:50 AM
IP: 70.245.205.84

HARVESTER - Yes, I've also wondered whether Puck had planned for Lexington to be the real mastermind all along, or whether it was just improvisation on the spot. But that was still clever work in the way that he had Lex pulled away by the Thailog Shock Troops and it turns out to be a different set-up than "Goliath's friends are picked off one by one".

Which last bit reminds me slightly of the bit in "Bone" where:

* SPOILERS FOLLOW *

That big campaign balloon of Phoney turns out to have more significance than just getting the cousins chased out of Boneville.

* SPOILERS END *

Of course, one of my all-time favorites in "Future Tense" is when we find out that Brooklyn and Demona are a couple, and not only is Goliath shocked and astonished by that revelation, but so is Bronx!
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 08:16:26 AM
IP: 4.244.210.159

Gunjack: I was actually referring more to the bit of foreshadowing I thought I spied. By the way, I don't think "revelatory" is a real word. But guns are still cool.

Todd: In regards to the Illuminati, I doubt Puck was planning it that carefully. His goal was to scare the shit out of Goliath to the point where the big guy would willingly hand him the Gate, so he stuck to the basics. But now that I think about it, I just came up with yet another theory on that episode. He'd tried twice before in the vision to get Goliath to hand over the Gate, but he didn't count on Goliath being so strong in his convictions (an annoying trait, that, or at least Puck probably found it annoying). Maybe this is why the Third Act was so intense. Puck realized that gentle prodding wouldn't do it, so he'd really have to step things up a notch, and just assail Goliath with as much horror as possible. So with that in mind, I'm wondering if making Lexington the mastermind was something that, like Thailog's death, he came up with on the fly. Which was why he had the shock troops simply carry him off.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:01:21 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Lain><<... unless theres a hungry shadows 5...>> *westley voice*
Will not happen!
DEATH FIRST!

HoE><<Goddamnit, Gunjack, I'm starting to drool now. And I can't run off to take a cold shower, 'cause I have something on the stove. Damn you!>> What'd I do!? I mean, geez, just cause I makes the guns that does the Boom, there's no need to go all slobbery on me, is there? ; )

...That was about the gun, right? It should be. It's worth it, believe you me. Twenty-round drum, 12-gauge, 3-1/2 inch chamber, gas-op full-auto, 14-inch rifled barrel with Vector brake, downward ejection so's it's ambidextrous, holographic reflex sight, mebbe 13 lbs loaded thanks to titanium and composite construction, rigged for ops in vacuum... It's even got a (frakkin' *HUGE*) bayonet for opening MREs and chest cavities and such. A nastier piece you will not find.

Eat your heart out, Jayne! "Through-gauge", my shiny kiester!

*resumes writing a chase scene*
Gunjack "Perserverent Percival Percieves" Valentine
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 08:12:20 PM
IP: 205.250.215.79

*looks at lain's most recent post *

Boy, TGS staff members are getting more violent by the day.

HARVESTER - Not to mention that I have a hard time believing that the U.S. government would have tolerated Xanatos taking over one of its leading cities for 32 years. (There must have been a lot of very nasty battles over that.)

Maybe Puck/Owen didn't know that Goliath knew about the Illuminati, and decided that it wasn't a good idea including any classified information in that little nightmare.

One other interesting feature about "Future Tense": the "death of Alexander" after he discovers that he'd inadvertently given away the rebels' headquarters loses a bit of its poignancy when you learn that the real person behind the occupation of Manhattan was standing in the rebels' headquarters right that very moment. (I've got to admit, Lexington being the real villain took me by surprise - though it was well prepared for when the Thailog Shock Troops were dragging him away. At the time, I thought that it was just "another good guy going down".)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 07:46:02 PM
IP: 4.245.19.127

Goddamnit, Gunjack, I'm starting to drool now. And I can't run off to take a cold shower, 'cause I have something on the stove. Damn you!

Todd: Something I meant to comment on last week. Another thing that I felt didn't make much sense about the "Future Tense" vision was that even if Xanatos did have a desire to conquer the world, I doubt the Illuminati would take kindly to that. Despite his wealth and resources, Xanatos was still just a "lower echelon member." Makes me wonder what the higher-ups have got.

*dashes off before his potato pancakes burn. To be continued...*
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 07:14:54 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Spen> <<And in addition, the first episode of "Gargoyles" season four will be episode 250>>

... unless theres a hungry shadows 5...

*simultaneously murdered by lynati and gunjack*
.
.
.
*is dead*

lain
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 07:13:39 PM
IP: 208.181.145.47

Upon further analysis, I realized I made a mistake in counting. The 150th story released really was Re-Emergence part 2.

Really, Spen, what makes you so sure that tgs hasn't released 250 stories already and I didn't leave off #250 as a test?
dph
AR, USA
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 05:26:04 PM
IP: 63.232.250.255

Here are two pieces of personal news, if news is the proper term. Perhaps trivia? Whatev.

Lynati showed me some dialogue scenes she was working on for a story last night. They were really good, but while I was reading them, I was also looking at precision rifle pictures on AR15.com. That's something I do: weapon media of various types form a sort of baseline backbeat to many of my daily activities. In this case, however, I ended up reading the pivotal, drama-drenched revelatory scene while simultaniously contemplating pix of a sumptuous Heavy-Barrel Steyr AUG variant... And now, every time I think of Demona/Andrea character development, I see technical specs for an austrian sniper rifle.

Piece of News #2 is even happier, and by happier I mean more irrelevent to anyone who isn't me: today, just moments ago in fact, I hammered out a design for a high-capacity drum-fed automatic shotgun, for use in a project Lain and I are working on. Thing is, this particular gun? I've been trying to get it right for SIX YEARS.

And now, back to edits on HS 4.

*KAPWING!*
Gunjack "Ungainly Mnemonic" Valentine
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 01:58:01 PM
IP: 205.250.215.79

DPH : And in addition, the first episode of "Gargoyles" season four will be episode 250.
Spen
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 02:49:44 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208

spen - Thankfully, I'm not that far along yet. However, within a couple of days/weeks, I should be able to throw out an interesting static: the total number of pictures (no duplicates, thumbnails count as separate, though) in the tgs art section.

Here's a couple of interesting stats:
1)The 50th story tgs released was called "Turncoat" - It is part of Gargoyles Season 1
1)The 100th story tgs released was called "Disobediance" - It is part of Gargoyles/Pendragon Season 2.
2)The 150th story tgs released was called "The Downfall" - It is part of Timedancer Season 2.
3)The 200th story tgs released was called "Transitions" - It is part of Gargoyles Season 3.
dph
ar, usa
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 02:24:22 AM
IP: 63.232.248.28

Todd : I myself am going to get around to reveiwing "No Mercy" tomorrow, since I have very little time to post today.

DPH : About that list of TGS staff members: I found a few people who apperently never contributed anything, but were on the staff nontheless.
Jill Morrison
Jason "DalinMagus" Rosado
Jenny 'O Brien
Karen Sumpter
Barry Floore

There might be more, but I can't find any.
Spen
Monday, March 20, 2006 09:33:36 PM
IP: 216.248.119.208

harvester>> please no. that wasnt the point of the discussion at all. i am all with todd on this one, please continue to post any and all of your thoughts about any tgs episodes (including those for whom you dont think the writers are around anymore). we dont all have to agree with all the things everyone says but, as todd has mentioned, these comments are the stuff that keeps TGS alive.

please continue to comment as you see fit and dont let us get in your way.
lain
Monday, March 20, 2006 09:29:37 PM
IP: 205.250.215.79

HARVESTER - Please don't be scared to post your thoughts on TGS episodes here. After all, that's the whole point of this comment room; without those thoughts being posted here, it would lack a reason for existing.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, March 20, 2006 08:02:45 PM
IP: 4.245.23.13

Sorry about before. I thought Bishansky was trying to initiate a game of some type.

I just started "Wolves" today, but now I'm slightly hesitant about continuing to post comments in the future. But on the other hand, I do love playing with fire (one of the reasons I keep choosing Loki when I don't use Demona), and it would be a shame to see all those old tires in my garage go to waste.

*spies something in the gutter which he thinks might be his mind, but turns out to be a dead rat. Takes out its eyes and continues searching for his wayward mind*
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:55:59 PM
IP: 69.174.3.196

In this issue: New Guests! Gathering 2007 Bids! Contest Reminders!
Fan Panelists Wanted! Dates to Remember!

NEW GUESTS:

"W.I.T.C.H.", the latest series from the folks at Disney and Producer
Greg Weisman, is having a cast and crew REUNION -- with Gathering
attendees as witnesses! Come see and listen as members of the writing
staff and voice cast talk about this fantasy-adventure serial.
Joining us on Sunday, June 25 will be:

Steve Blum - Voice of Blunk
Kittie - Voice of Taranee
Loren Lester - Voice of Julian
Tracy Martin - Voice of Bess Grumper
Candi Milo - Voice of Irma
Marianne Muellerleile - Voice of Galgheita
Justin Shenkarow - Voice of Eric
Mitchell Whitfield - Voice of Phobos
Samuel Bernstein - Writer
Leslie Jaspherson - Production manager
Ginny McSwain - Voice director
Jon Weisman - Writer

"Hellboy", the animated project. Come meet the behind-the-scenes crew
for a sneak peek at what goes into making the two new upcoming direct
to DVD "Hellboy" features from IDT Entertainment. Joining us on
Saturday, June 24 will be:

Tad Stones - Supervising Producer / Director
Victor Cook - Director
Greg Guler - Character Designer
Phil Weinstein - Director

To view the full Gathering 2006 guest list, please visit:
http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/guests.html

There will be many unique opportunities to mingle with the guests.
Some will be sign-up events, with first-come, first-serve
availability. All will require you to be a member of the Gathering of
the Gargoyles to participate. Don't miss out. Register now!

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/registration.html

THE GATHERING 2007 – CALL FOR BIDS

It's time once again for you, the fans, to decide where the next
Gathering of the Gargoyles will take place. If you are interested in
placing a bid for The Gathering 2007, now is the time to assemble your
convention staff and put your proposal together. For complete bidding
rules and guidelines, please visit the Gathering 2007 Bid Information
page at:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/g2007-bids.html

The deadline for bid submissions is March 31, 2006, so please don't
delay! The Gathering 2007 depends on you!

ANTHOLOGY CONTEST:

The Gathering of the Gargoyles is proud to present, once again, an
anthology of all-new and original fan work! Following up on 2004's
Phoenix Gate Anthology and 2005's Eye of Odin Anthology, we're
completing the trilogy with the third infamous artifact in the set…
the Grimorum Arcanorum!

For over a thousand years, this ancient tome has made its way into the
hands of one villain after another and caused untold mischief with its
magic. But where did it come from? Who else has thumbed its fragile
pages over the centuries? What spells and secret lore are contained
within its leather binding?

The time has come to answer some of those questions. And you can help!
The Grimorum Arcanorum Anthology is accepting submissions of stories
and artwork to appear in a limited-edition paperback book that will
debut at the Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles in Los Angeles,
California.

The deadlines for entries are March 31, 2006 for stories and April 15,
2006 for artwork. For complete rules and guidelines, please visit:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/anthology.html

ART SHOW:

Attention all artists! The Art Show is filling up fast! We have only
a few more display spaces available, and once they are gone we will be
unable to accept any more Art Show registrations. The fee for panel
or table space is only $10, and artists of all ages and abilities are
welcome to participate. For more information, please visit:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/art-show.html

MUSIC VIDEO CONTEST:

Music video showings have a been a popular part of many fan
conventions for a long time. This year, The Gathering of the
Gargoyles again presents an opportunity for the fans to put their
"Gargoyles" music video ideas on tape (or digital media) for other's
enjoyment.

Music videos are much more than just episode footage put to a song. By
taking clips from different scenes and episodes and mixing and timing
them with music, they can do just about anything the creator wants:
highlight certain portions of a series, tell a story through song, or
even parody ideas through wordplay.

The deadline for entries is June 3, 2006. For complete rules and
guidelines, please visit:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/music-vids.html

FAN PANELISTS WANTED:

1. Are you going to be at the Gathering this year, in beautiful
Valencia, CA?

2. Are you any or all of the following?
A. Writer
B. Artist
C. Costumer or Cosplayer
D. Frequent Con-Goer
E. Gargoyles Know-It-All

3. Are you willing and able to talk in front of a group?

4. Want to be on some panels?

Yes? Then The Gathering of the Gargoyles 2006 needs YOU!

Fan Panelist Coordinator Christine is now accepting volunteers to give
talks, make presentations or lead discussions on a variety of subjects!

What do you get by being a panelist? Well, there's no money in it … no
limos … probably not a lot of groupies. But how does the envy,
admiration and acclaim of your peers sound? Plus, we'll throw in a
special ribbon to announce your status to everyone at the con! And
maybe some other exclusive treats and goodies as well.

Fan Panels are currently broken down into five Tracks – Writing, Art,
Costuming, Meta-Fandom, and The Gargoyles Universe – each containing a
variety of topics. Most panels will be expected to run for about an
hour in length.

Track – Writing
- Creating Compelling Characters
- Tools, Tricks and Traps of the Trade
- Villains, Villainy and Plots
- Romance and Drama
- Crossovers: from Silly to Serious
- Writing the Erotic Scene
- Designing and Running Roleplaying Games
- Collaborations and Shared Universes

Track – Art
- Sketching 101
- Character Design and Drawing
- Coloring Methods: Traditional, Digital, Beyond
- Web Comics
- Drawing the Erotic Scene

Track – Costuming
- Costuming and Make-Up Basics
- Cosplay Tips, Tricks and Etiquette
- Advanced Costuming
- Dude Looks Like a Lady … And the Other Way Around!

Track – Meta-Fandom
- Your First Con
- Online Fan Sites
- Fan to Pro
- Making Music Videos
- So You Want to Host a Gathering?

Track – The Gargoyles Universe
- Gargoyle Biology, Anatomy and Physiology
- Gargoyle Psychology, Society and Culture
- Historical and Literary Influences
- Science and Technology
- Magic, Artifacts and Tabloid Weirdness

Ideally, we'd like each panel to have from 3-5 presenters, to get some
lively chatter going. Please remember that this is still a working
draft, a tentative list, and the actual panel line up may be changed
between now and con time.

If you see something on there that you are interested in, excited
about, and feel reasonably confident and well qualified to speak on,
by all means contact Christine straightaway and let her know!

It'd also be helpful to know what days you're planning to be at the
con (which runs from Friday through Monday) and by what
name/handle/alias you'll be going.

To become a fan panelist, e-mail Christine at: christine@sabledrake.com

HELP PROMOTE THE GATHERING:

We don't want a single "Gargoyles" fan to be unaware of The Gathering
2006, and we're looking for a few good fans to help us spread the
word! If you will be attending a convention in your area in the near
future, please let us know about it and take a few copies our flyer
along. To download the most recent version of the flyer, please visit:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/flyers/gathering-flyer2.pdf

If you have a web site, Livejournal, or regularly post to message
boards, there's another way you can help! Just choose a banner
graphic or link button from our web site, download it, and add it to
your web page, online journal, or message board signature line. For
details, visit:

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/links.html

GARGOYLES SEASON 2 on DVD:

On December 6, 2005, "Gargoyles" Season 2, Volume 1 became available
on DVD. This 3-disc box set includes the first 26 episodes of the
second season, from "Leader of the Pack" through "Kingdom." It also
includes an audio commentary on all four parts of "City of Stone" by
Greg Weisman, Frank Paur and Michael Reaves; episode introductions by
Greg Weisman; and the Gathering of the Cast and Crew featurette.

If you haven't already purchased your copy of the DVD, you can help
support The Gathering 2006 by ordering through Amazon.com by way of
the link on our web site.

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/

DATES TO REMEMBER:

March 31, 2006 – The last day to take advantage of the current
membership rates of $45.00 for adults and $25.00 for children ages 10
through 14 (accompanied by an adult).

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/registration.html

March 31, 2006 – Deadline for story entries in the Grimorum Arcanorum
Anthology Contest.
April 15, 2006 – Deadline for art entries in the Grimorum Arcanorum
Anthology Contest.

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/anthology.html

May 22, 2006 – Deadline for hotel reservations at the Hyatt Valencia
to receive the Gathering's discounted block rate.

June 3, 2006 – Deadline for Art Show Registration

http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2006/art-show.html

June 23 – 25, 2006 – The Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles.


Questions? Comments? Contact us at: staff@gatheringofthegargoyles.com

- The Gathering 2006 Staff
Greg Bishansky - [Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles Promotions Assistant]
Monday, March 20, 2006 10:45:09 AM
IP: 65.33.202.237

Lady Mystic;

As I wiped the CR that week...

I have the whoooooole thing, and I have just sent it off to you.

:)
lain
Monday, March 20, 2006 10:17:50 AM
IP: 205.250.215.79

fine. nine. : P *sulks again*
Lynati
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:30:54 AM
IP: 70.243.160.26

Eight

I WAS fifth, and then somehow I got distracted, for a whole hour and a half, before I noticed I never got around to hitting the "post" button.

Gunjack, why did you go to bed? It's only 5am and I have new dialogue to show you! *sulk sulk*

And now I have even more! and it is only mildly inane! *bounces in her chair, hands flailing*

now it's 6:30 am, and I'm going to bed.
Lynati
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:30:25 AM
IP: 70.243.160.26

I guess, I'm really eighth.
Starsinger
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:25:04 AM
IP: 209.240.205.61

I default to seventh.

Thank you Spike.

Happy first day of Spring, sometime in the afternoon.
Starsinger
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:23:36 AM
IP: 209.240.205.61

seventh! YES I DID IT! there was one person before me, but he/she didn't call out seventh, hehe
Dragomir
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:19:12 AM
IP: 71.192.76.212

Lynati: (Re: Throw-away lines) -- Without having the e-mails to hand to check, a major concern may well have been that if you and/or any other key architects of Season 5 pulled out between now and when it gets released (no time soon!) then this nice tie-in could be a pain the backside for the new writers who come along. In any event, whether you include Easter Eggs or not, I'm still not sure what it has to do with telling the story of the day, making it meaningful, giving insight to character. Easter Eggs are basically continuity stocktaking which is okay if all goes to plan, but... when has that ever happened? And even then, people's response will simply be, at best, "ha. Nifty." A lot of effort when you could be adding a joke, or finding more ways to provide adrenaline or pathos.

(Re: The London Clan) The series is called 'Pendragon', not 'Gargoyles'. Just like Goliath is the prism through which 'Gargoyles' stories are told, Arthur is the prism through which 'Pendragon' stories should be told -- not Merlin, not the London clan. I happen to believe it was a mistake to make the clan so prominent. So we tried to bring the focus of the series back to Arthur and his core family, to rebuild from the ground up. But the clan was in "Out of the Blue", prominent in "Rome Eternal", prominent in the finale, and we got them into other places too. As you know, we'd already started to turn to Season 5 and looked at assimilating some of the clan into the main group of Arthur's knights/squires. Gradually, we were building the peripheral cast back up after having them crowd out the leads in past seasons. I'm not knocking the fine work past writers did with them (though I was a fan when S3 aired and, you can read my reviews, I generally preferred the Arthur/Mary/Merlin stuff to stories like "On Holiday"). You assert that we didn't make Arthur more interesting -- I disagree that he was uninteresting in the first place. He was just a back-passenger in his own series. If you inherited a 'Gargoyles' season where Coldstone and the Mutates were giving equal, or even more prominent, billing compared to Goliath and Elisa you might choose to course correct. At least, I would have.

We went back to the Greg Weisman idea for 'Pendragon', a small core cast. We brought back Griff, and I pushed to give him greater attention and we were delving deeper into his character (something which we would have done a lot more of next season). We had an episode with Rory & Leba, an episode with Dulci, a series finale which gave big character moments to all three. Coldstone and the Mutates received similar treatment in the original series.

(Re: edits) More than half the stories were done by the turn of the year. I can't remember when they showed up on the edits page, but there was at least 6 months lead time for most of them -- a year in some cases. We waited quite a long time for comments and few came, though we did get some great edits. But there comes a point where you make a decision: hang back in case someone decides they've got something more to say, or... well, get on with it. At that time, we had Gargs 4 that needed some love, and we were pretty happy with Pen 4, and it was up-in-the-air how many months Pendragon could be on hold. It was just a case of using our time more effectively. I could hang back and re-edit my stuff and polish it and go over it forever, and I've no doubt if I had new drafts of all these stories now I'd do a lot of stuff differently, but sometimes it's best to let go and expose your work to the light of public scrutiny and see what works and what doesn't. The readers generally gave us the most useful feedback anyway, and feedback which we used to make the second half of the season even better.

(Re: "Most people were tired of beating them and put the stick down") Sorry, there was almost no beating of stories. I would have LOVED for there to be stories beat out. There was, occasionally, "let's add in an Easter Egg". But if you believed in doing a story a different way, you could have come up with a coherent different way, you could have challenged the characterisation, you could have challenged the flow of the story, the concept, the season pace; bring ideas, suggest changes, show your own proposals. It happened in long-term plans, but almost never in relation to what was on the table at that point. And frankly, we couldn't ever really go crazy because we knew that the Season 5 and 6 were locked in, the Season 4 plans were always pretty tightly focused. If someone had said, "Know what? Let's scrap the whole lot and rebuild from first principles" I'd have been delighted. But the finale was outlined, and I was coming in mid-flow. I was mostly trying to say "this story is doing x, y and z... how can I give it drama, comedy, humour, characterisation and some purpose in its own right?" Sometimes that succeeded, sometimes I don't think I did; but neither type of outline were challenged all that much anyway. I remember one instance where I posted a Dr Milano outline, you commented on how an early scene was too close to a later plan about Brooklyn, I made appropriate amendments to that, and in your reply you said, "hey, did you add all that to the end of the outline? It's quite good." The end of the outline had been there all along, naturally.

(Re: Serialisation) What is the benefit of a serialised story over a self-contained story? As far as I can see, serialisation is a tool to explore character and to tell story. We used a different tool. In terms of episode structure, I think we were pretty close to 'Gargoyles'. Each story had a core theme, the villain reflected that theme back. Sekhmet's depression was a way of commenting on Arthur's depression. The Fenris-wolf was a way of showing another side to Mary and a Nazi metaphor for the "Path not chosen" story. The White Knight facilitated the internal debate between the questing group. But remember, we were doing a Holy Grail in which we wanted the guys to be able to achieve the Holy Grail -- sometimes we had to reign ourselves in just because of that. In a subsequent season, I might have wanted to push the envelope a bit more. You say: why not have a character who joins and betrays the gang a season later. Apart from the question, how do you know there'll *be* a next season, I say: and what does that mean for the story? What do we know about the main characters after that we didn't before, what do we know about the Grail quest that we didn't before? (Irrespective of the fact that Todd already did a story like this in Season Two with Corbie, of course).

I think what you're saying is that we did quite a 'safe' season. We consciously chose, for example, not to have more than the three casualties in 'Carbonek' because that was the tone of the ending we wanted. We didn't change the format too much from beginning to end. We didn't kill off a regular. We shook things up, but we kept each story functioning in its own right. But remember, 'Pendragon' had only really found its feet in Season Three. As time went by, once we'd shored up our foundations, you started to see more cross-pollination of the different storylines, especially in "Carbonek". Also... it was the Holy Grail season. The story naturally tended towards the internal, and quests don't best suit casts of seven or eight (which is what was originally intended). We wanted a small cast who people could get to know, who could be the guardians of the subtle changes in the story. 'Gargoyles' has a big domestic setting -- we didn't want to be just another 'Gargoyles'. That said, if you look up our early Season Five ideas, we would have had more consistency in our (already massive) extended cast. We talked about the season's quest being one where Arthur was acting rather than reacting. And I think the season would probably have lended itself to being more twisty and turny and complex, perhaps more your cup of tea.

(Re: Keeping the 'Pendragon'verse insulated). Three reasons. 1) Out of respect for other writers, we didn't want to step on your toes. Whenever we did use other characters (e.g. Wolf, the Illuminati soldiers) we almost always seemed to learn in the week of release that we'd messed up something for someone else. By and large, we tried to do the best we could with our corner of the universe. 2) Focus. We wanted to tell the emotional story of Arthur and his gang, not just to rope in stuff from the rest of the series because people might be pleased to recognise a reference to another story in one line. 3) We wanted 'Pendragon' to have its own identity; just like 'Angel' had its own identity from 'Buffy'. It has (or should have) its own fingerprint, its own themes, its own storytelling style. It was never going to be a dark thriller like 'Bad Guys', or a tenth century slice o'life series like 'Dark Ages'. We went back to basics (to the original show as well as to Season 3, which I -- as a fan -- loved) and developed the series from there: from Arthur, to a lesser extent from Mary, Merlin and Griff; and then from the secondary cast including the neo-knights and the London clan. To be honest, giving meaningful stories to the 'Pendragon' extended cast of several dozen was enough -- going further would be a bit too far.

(Re: E-mails) I'm happy to discuss the season by e-mail (galaxystalker AT gmail DOT com), but my impression is that your problems with the series tend to be of the kind: "you did this, and I'd rather have seen this." I could say the same about... well, every TGS series I didn't right barring ". I could even say the same about P4: I'd certainly have done more with Bercilak and Singleton with the benefit of three years' hindsight (which isn't to say I regret moving on when I did). But this seems to fall into the category of preferences rather than criticism. And we've both got new writing projects which we're pursuing so I'm uncertain how productive it might be. I'd be interested to read your comments if you want to write them, though.

(I agree on 'The West Wing'. Sorkin also, incidentally, blows us all out of the water in terms of writing on the fly with no idea of what his next episode will be! :))
Ed
Taunton, England
Monday, March 20, 2006 07:11:05 AM
IP: 213.187.38.108

Lynati: That's quite a post. I'll have to read that later, because to quote David Byrne, "I've got to get to work now."
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Monday, March 20, 2006 06:36:38 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

CLITORIS!

Um, I mean, fifth?
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
Monday, March 20, 2006 06:34:30 AM
IP: 69.174.3.196

Lady Mystic : I have that week, and I'll get it sent to you shortly.
Spen
Monday, March 20, 2006 06:07:50 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208

FOURTH!

***** TGS CR ARCHIVE NOTICE *****

Before I update the TGS CR Information pages, does anyone have the CR week dated 2/6/06 through 2/13/06 (or 2/14/06)? If so, please email the file to my address located on the page linked from my name. (I was unable to save any portion of the forum during that timeframe.) Thank you so much!

***** END TGS CR ARCHIVE NOTICE *****
Lady Mystic
Head Admin of TGS CR Information
Monday, March 20, 2006 05:08:34 AM
IP: 68.21.32.252

2nd!!
dph
ar, usa
Monday, March 20, 2006 01:38:46 AM
IP: 63.232.248.182

Dos Dueces!

The prawncracker *wiiiins*

You got to know when to hold them...
Gunjacl "Misery Me" Valentine
Monday, March 20, 2006 01:29:32 AM
IP: 205.250.215.79

First!!
Spen
Monday, March 20, 2006 01:14:13 AM
IP: 216.248.119.208