Gside: I know, but Mecord _did_ ask . . . ;)
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Sun, Jul 30, 2006 6:50:23 pm EDT from 69.230.86.240

Guardian> <<They do' it's "it.">>: Unfortunately, it's not usually considered polite, as it's usually taken to be something that truly neutral, as opposed to just currently indeterminate.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
posted @ Sat, Jul 29, 2006 10:48:00 pm EDT from 69.141.213.120

The artists (both current and former) are getting their due now with a list of top 10 contributors to tgs artwork, listed in reverse order:

10. Batya 'The Toon' - 12 pieces of artwork

two way tie for 8th and 9th: Noel Leas and Robby Bevard - 14 pieces of artwork

7. Jennifer 'CrzyDemona' Anderson - 15 pieces of artwork

6. Revel - 17 pieces of artwork

5. Shauntell Holm - 18 pieces of artwork

4. Amber - 20 pieces of artwork

3. Lain - 23 pieces of artwork

2. Jessica Entis - 37 pieces of artwork

1. Christi Smith 'Spike' Hayden - 80 pieces of artwork

*stops to give these 10 names a round of applause in recognition of their hard work in the past*

On average, each piece of artwork had 1.03 people working on it.

Lady Mystic - one request: make a special notation about this week/month's cr: this is the 1st time we've published statistics on the artists of tgs.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Thu, Jul 27, 2006 6:42:25 pm EDT from 63.232.250.211

Mecord: They do' it's "it." ;) But no worries; it happened all the time back when I was a regular at GFW. Still happens. *snickers*

Anyway, I apparently didn't miss much during my forty-eight hours of NO POWER! In any event, I just wanted to say that I puzzled out what the heck I was referring to in my last post, what with the Deadly Force and Hunter's Moon confusion.

In Deadly Force, Goliath says to Elisa while she's still comatose, "Know that I will continue where you started. I will find this Tony Dracon, and I WILL MAKE HIM PAY." And _that's_ where there's a shot of Goliath's eyes glowing.

He _does_ say "I will find these Dark Hunters, and I will KILL THEM," I believe, after the Clan "realizes" Elisa is dead. Many thanks to Taleweaver for adding to my clarification. :)
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Tue, Jul 25, 2006 11:33:01 pm EDT from 69.230.94.250

Jaw-dropping moments> Biggest one has to be Hunter's Moon Part 3 when Elisa is falling off the dam and Goliath dives to catch her. He's down this half a dozen times, so I figured he'd catch her. Then she's gone and I'm so busy screaming, I don't even notice the cut to commercial.

The next highest on the list was The Price when Broadway turned to stone in midair. I'm sure everyone wondered what might happen if this occured, but Broadway was my fav. And I held my breath throughout that commercial break.
Taleweaver
Honor those the dragons heed in thought and favor word and deed
posted @ Tue, Jul 25, 2006 4:34:44 pm EDT from 207.69.139.7

Gaurdian> Oops, sorry. Times like this I wish the English language had a gender nuetral pronoun.


...Good grief. The code I have to enter to post this is 69fee1...
Mecord
posted @ Tue, Jul 25, 2006 8:52:11 am EDT from 65.100.216.42

Mecord: "Her" point. ;)

Anyway, hey, thanks for bringing up all those awesome memories I had sadly forgotten. Elisa Maza saving Angela with contemporary CPR is just awesome.

Mecord's reminiscing actually dredged up another of my favorite scenes in my subconscious. Sadly, I can't remember if it's from "Deadly Force" or "Hunter's Moon," but Goliath is reeling from either Elisa's (DF) or Angela's (HM) incapacitation. He says, "I will find this "Dracon/Hunter," and I WILL KILL HIM." His eyes then glow their traditional white, and you can tell, he is eff'ing PISSED. Beautiful stuff.
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Sat, Jul 22, 2006 3:25:04 pm EDT from 69.230.92.83

Lynati>>I agree with Gaurdian on his second point. Where Elisa cries at the end of that episode. The first time I saw it I could hardly believe that they would end the episode on such a tragic note. One more example of why this is not your typical american cartoon.

Concerning Gaurdien's last coment, about Owen being Puck, I remember discussing Puck with my brother the day before I first saw that episode and I said, "wouldn't it be funny if Owen turned out to be Puck?" Then he said, "you know, it would make a lot of sense." I laughed the entire comercial break after we found out we were right.

For me though, there are several moments that stand out. In Mirror (The entire ep is just incredible), when Elisa, as a gargoyle, jumps after Goliath even though she still isn't 100% sure she can glide on her own. Then there's the moment in CoS where Macbeth takes off the Hunter's mask. Knowing Macbeth's own history with the hunter it says alot. Then there's the moment Xanatos tears the Eye of Odin from transormed Fox, and Fox's subsequent change back to Human. Her scream still sends chills down my spine. And of course, Hunter's Moon, first when Angela is injured, then when Goliath thought Elisa was dead. Talk about tragedies, this had the perfect set up for one. And the rage Goliath felt. I can't really explain it. For me, I could feel the churning emotions in Goliath and the clan. Perhaps one of their most desperate moments.

I could go on. There are so many moments that contibute to the whole. But the ones I mentioned above are some of my favorites.
Mecord
posted @ Sat, Jul 22, 2006 2:29:57 pm EDT from 65.100.216.42

Dezi: <<Taleweaver: I keep thinking you're Leo, with the pic and the font color...>>

Except I use BRIGHT pale yellow, and I rarely have as much to say. ;)
Leo
posted @ Sat, Jul 22, 2006 7:13:27 am EDT from 68.107.154.71

Lynati:

There's really only two moments that really stick out in my mind, all these years later:

When I cried: I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it had to be when Goliath, "realizing" Demona is dead, stammers, "My -- angel of the night . . ." And then goes into this awesome roar. Tugs at my heartstrings EVERY time. And Keith David just NAILED it.

I believe I shed a few tears along with Derek Maza/Talon and Elisa Maza when 1) Derek Maza's supposed "cure" dropped to the floor and when 2) Elisa Maza realises Talon is her brother, whom she hasn't heard from in days; come the end of that episode we see Elisa Maza in the ClockTower -- in fact I think she's on some hay or some sort of bedding --- I could be wrong -- anyway she's just bawling her eyes out, and of course who wouldn't when you suddenly realize that your brother, whome you haven't seen in a few days, has suddenly been turned into some CAT-BAT THING WITH ELECTRO'S POWERS . . .?! *ahem*

The gasp: Again, another no brainer, but when we the people were given the reveal that "OWEN IS PUCK!" I was just "Holy crap! Whoah! Dude! Holy shit! Ohh-Emm-Gee! Holeh crap! Augh!"

And that's all that comes to mind, yeh. Hope that helps, Lynati!
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Fri, Jul 21, 2006 11:45:07 pm EDT from 69.230.68.144

Todd - <If you want a potentially controversial take on Claudius, incidentally, here's one: he might have actually been a better king than Hamlet's father.> That's interesting. You would need up with Hamlet in the position of the 3rd Hunter (I forgot his name.), being more interested in ruling than in caring about how the people were treated.

IMHO, the best rulers are those who don't want the power, but take it relunctantly. With great power comes great responsibility. Of course, I have a dilemna question: Would you vote for an honest politician who disagreed with you on issues or a dishonest politician whom you agreed with on issues?

Lyanti - CoS part 2 (I think) when Brooklyn says "I hope tonight is quieter than last night". It's just like saying "Things can't get any worse". Never ever say that or things will.
dph of rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Fri, Jul 21, 2006 9:36:08 pm EDT from 162.40.59.123

Apropos of nothing, I am taking a poll.

What do you (all) think were the best/most memorable/most definitive moments (moments, not episodes) in the original show? What sticks out in your mind...made you gasp, cry, or otherwise dropped your jaw?

I'm polling this same question in my LJ and some of the other forums, and hope that everyone will contribute. : )
Lynati
posted @ Fri, Jul 21, 2006 3:00:33 am EDT from 70.243.64.38

Guardian> <<*gasp* Name recognition>>: Yes, I don't hide very well, do I. One reason I am more pirate than ninja. And I remember you as well.
<<Can we finger paint with my sanity if it's going to go up on the walls?>>: Sure. There's not much else you can do with something after it's gotten on the walls.

Mecord> <<And hey, who would argue with him?>>: It's good to be the king. And almost as good to be next in line when the king kicks it.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 11:11:37 pm EDT from 69.141.213.120

Well, I meant that Sybil would be more of a straightforward villainess without the greyish elements and tragic background that Morgana had.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 10:07:09 pm EDT from 4.244.209.139

Taleweaver: I keep thinking you're Leo, with the pic and the font color...whatever, carry on. :D
Dezi
But why is all the rum gone?
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 9:18:20 pm EDT from 68.58.30.120

Taleweaver: Interesting argument. Although conversely, you have those characters who don't pussy-foot around and then regret it to varying degrees -- your Lady Macbeths, Othellos, Lears, Claudiuses -- people who should have made certain they knew what they were doing, should have "done a 'Hamlet'", and they might have saved themselves quite a lot of bother.

Todd: I don't think Sybil would have been an "anti-climax" after Morgana, just different. She would have had fewer of Morgana's weaknesses (towards Mary, etc.) which would make her more dangerous. Much more like the power-hungry version of the Morgana legend, perhaps, although obviously seeking power in other ways than seizing the throne of a constitutional monarchy.
Ed
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 8:26:08 pm EDT from 213.187.39.126

Mecord> Now you're talking. That's the Steven Bochco storytelling method; remorsely deaths and a high body count. Actually, I seem to remember an animated short to tallies all the deaths in major Shakespeare plays, excluding the sonnets and the comedies, it gets into the hundreds even excluding Richard III with the mass killings of who armies.

But direct action doesn't kill tragedy. I recently brushed up on the Illiad (so I could watch Troy and know what I was throwing popcorn at) and the story has a couple of tragic twists all stemming from the fatal flaws of Agamemnon and Achillies. Agie's pettiness causes him to hurt Achillies. Achillies anger puts his men and Achaens in the spot they're in and this leads to Achillies nephew meeting his end. (As a sidebar: I find it were that people on the fictional battlefield seemed shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that people die and the guy next to or the one you're closest to may fall in the dust. I thought Hector got the shaft in the story. He fought clean and fair as did Petroceles. All this talk of vengence seemed immature and petty.)

Any way, contrast that tragedy (flaws upon flaws leading to and unfortunate act) to the Shakespeare model of tradegy. (where misunderstanding and incomplete action rule the tale) There's room enough for both, but I like characters to act. So to Brutus, gladiator up kill the power mad Caesar and tell Mark Anthony to shut up or he'll get more of the same. To Hamlet, yeah kill your uncle and say your father made you do it. Of course, I'd watch my back in case Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Ophelia get together and decide to form a rebel alliance. And Macbeth, tell your with if she wants to rule, do her own dirty work. Phophecies are for chumps.

(I hope this liven things up!)
Taleweaver
Honor those the dragons heed in thought and favor word and deed
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 8:11:32 pm EDT from 207.69.138.7

MECORD - Keep in mind that back then, there'd be a lot of doubt over whether the Ghost really was the ghost of the old king. People believed at the time that a ghost was more likely to be a demon in disguise than a ghost as we understand the term (the spirit of the departed returned to the living world), and that the Ghost might have been telling all this to Hamlet in order to manipulate him into committing an act of murder.

Of course, it turns out that Claudius does have enough of a conscience to feel guilt-ridden over murdering his brother, but not enough to get him to give up Gertrude and the throne of Denmark (the things that he committed the murder to gain), which gives him a certain pitiable quality.

If you want a potentially controversial take on Claudius, incidentally, here's one: he might have actually been a better king than Hamlet's father. The main thing that we are told about Hamlet's father is that he's constantly fighting (the old King of Norway who was Fortinbras's father, the Poles, etc.). Claudius, when threatened with an invasion by Fortinbras, instead of going to war at once, simply sends a note to Fortinbras's uncle, who promptly makes him call off the invasion; thus Claudius is able to save Denmark from an invasion without a drop of blood being spilled. (Here's potential for a revisionist take on "Hamlet" - that Claudius's real motive for poisoning his brother was fear that the old King's wars were ruining Denmark and that they needed a ruler who'd take a more diplomatic approach.)
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 7:23:55 pm EDT from 4.244.209.139

Taleweaver> Well, if they weren't such wimps, the play would be much shorter. And while that might not be a bad thing for the audience, I doubt Shakespeare would be so popular. After all, Hamlets most popular whining session boils down to, "Man, I'm so depressed I want to kill myself." Personally, I think Hamlet just should have stormed in, killed his uncle, and told everyone that his dead father told him to do it. And hey, who would argue with him?
Mecord
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 7:09:41 pm EDT from 65.100.216.42

Mecord> I've always viewed tragic characters as ones with a fatal flaw. When you're dealing with a character driven story as opposed to plot driven or contrived like Romeo & Juliet the character's flaw is what constantly trips them up.

I had a great literary criticism against Shakespeare from a college English class. Basically, it boiled down to Shakespeares tragic characters are wimps. They know what needs to be done, but whine and complain about how conflicted they. Hamlet was the strongest example. He's hoping to wring a confession out of his uncle, but is a guy who'd murder his brother the type to be haunted by his conscience? I also used Brutus from Julius Caesar and Macbeth.

Now plot driven tragedy is just a matter of timing, but I'll leave that for another post.
Taleweaver
Honor those the dragons heed in thought and favor word and deed
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 2:49:17 pm EDT from 207.69.137.206

Vash - About when do you expect the technical issues to be resolved so that the gnc will be back up?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 1:57:26 pm EDT from 63.232.249.217

In a literary sense, Hamlet is neither strictly good nor evil. He is a tragic character. Sometimes the most tragic characters are good people driven to bad things. Sometimes they are bad people who learn to do good things and end up dying anyway. I think people love tragic characters, like Demona, not just because it makes for good storytelling, but also because it expresses the dual nature of good and evil in all of us.
Mecord
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 1:28:40 pm EDT from 65.100.216.42

HARVESTER - Good point. Of course, it raises another interesting question: do Morgana's actions in the Connection case (endangering the lives of people who have no link to Arthur, Merlin, or to Uther's war on Gorlois over Igraine 1500 years before) come across as even worse if they're based on revenge rather than on power-hunger? If Morgana's out to become ruler of Britain (in a way that would turn the clock back, throwing Parliament, Magna Carta, and all the other curbs on the monarchy's power out the window), she'd be targetting the population anyway. But if her goal is simply to exact vengeance upon two people and she winds up getting other people injured or killed as a side effect, people who had no part in the wrongs done against her family, who are not her targets, that makes things even worse, in a way.

(It gets into the whole question of which is worse: the villain motivated by greed and personal gain, or the villain motivated by a Cause? As in, were the Canmores in "Hunter's Moon", motivated by a family feud against the gargoyles, better or worse than the Hunters in "City of Stone", motivated as much by a desire to rule over Scotland and dispose of their human rivals as by a dislike of gargoyles? There's the parallel with the Canmores to Morgana's actions above, in fact, when they blow up the clock tower to get at the gargoyles but wind up doing some damage to the humans below - as in, Chavez winding up in the hospital with a broken leg.)

As a side-note, I find myself thinking of another character out to avenge a family wrong rather than to achieve power - Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet does a number of shocking things in the course of his quest for revenge, such as driving his girl-friend insane and stabbing her father behind the arras (not to mention that the upshot of his revenge is that Fortinbras is able to just walk into Denmark and take it over without having to fight for it), and yet we forgive him for all that (or come close to it, at least) because his goal is to punish Claudius for his crimes rather than to become King of Denmark. At least, we don't look upon him as a villain.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 8:37:49 am EDT from 4.244.209.97

I just figured out why I never want to own any gaming system more complex than a Playstation (click the link in my name).

Todd: <Of course, we whitewashed Morgana to a slight extent, in a sense; in Malory, there's no mention of her feud with Arthur having anything to do with what Uther did to her parents. (The "Pendragon-Cornwall" feud, in fact, seems to have been an invention of T. H. White's.) Instead, she's motivated by a simple desire to become Queen of Britain. We left that bit out to have Morgana motivated solely by revenge.>

For the purposes of the setting in the modern world, I think revenge suits her character better. A struggle for power might seem out of place, what with Great Britain no longer being autocratic.
Harvester of Eyes
"Wondering and dreaming, the words had different meanings.... Yes, they did." -Pink Floyd.
posted @ Thu, Jul 20, 2006 6:57:36 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Oh, and Matt Frewer is also on the cast list for Eureka. For the most part, I really like the cast.
Mecord
posted @ Wed, Jul 19, 2006 5:47:53 pm EDT from 65.100.216.42

I can confirm that. Here is the link http://www.scifi.com/eureka/cast/allison/

Good show, by the way. Even my dad, the rocket scientist, sat down and watched it.
Mecord
posted @ Wed, Jul 19, 2006 5:37:51 pm EDT from 65.100.216.42

I was watching EUReKA on the SciFi channel last night and just caught a glimse of what looked like Salli Richardson as cast. Can anyone confirm?
Starsinger
posted @ Wed, Jul 19, 2006 7:31:38 am EDT from 209.240.206.193

TODD> That's what made Morgana's conflict with the protagonists so interesting. She did have a legitimate gripe with them, Merlin in particular.

I've said this to you before, but it bears repeating. None of that makes Morgana as a villain problematic. Instead, it makes it compelling. Yes, it would be easier if her motives were simple, wanting to just be queen. But, what in the Gargoyles Universe is simple like that? Not much.

Take Magneto for example. Would he be as fascinating an antagonist if he weren't a survivor of the Holocaust? In fact, when those comics started in the 60s, he was just another villain, a Dr. Doom clone. In the 70s, when he was given the Holocaust background, he became a real character.

Same goes for Morgana. The fact that she had some readers defending her actions proves that she was a strong enough character to gain her supporters.
Greg Bishansky
"Plato once said that for everything that exists, there is a perfect form of it somewhere. A perfect human being, a perfect chair, a perfect stick, so that everything is a shadow of that one perfect form. Now, if we follow that train of thought, that means that somewhere in the universe there exists the perfect form of the absolute and complete idiot and he left here an hour ago." - Matthew Gideon
posted @ Tue, Jul 18, 2006 12:42:46 am EDT from 68.199.4.45

Lady Mystic - sorry I have not responded yet. *points to red in eyes* I make it a policy not to compose/send messages while struggling to stay awake. When (not if) I catch up on some sleep, I'll be sending an email.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Jul 17, 2006 5:17:32 pm EDT from 63.232.250.5

GSide: *gasp* Name recognition!
Can we finger paint with my sanity if it's going to go up on the walls?
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Mon, Jul 17, 2006 3:36:16 pm EDT from 69.230.90.231

I'd like to make a few additional remarks about "Pendragon" now that Ed's made his post.

One regret that I have is that I don't think that we reached an entirely satisfactory resolution of the issue of Morgana's revenge. The issue here was that Merlin helped Uther destroy Morgana's family in order to bring about Arthur's conception and that therefore Arthur's very existence is founded upon the wrongs done to Gorlois, Igraine, and their offspring. If it was only Uther's motivation of lust for Igraine that was a factor here, it wouldn't be a problem, since Uther is long-since dead. But there's Merlin's involvement, and, more significantly, *why* he did it, which was to produce Arthur. This means that for Arthur to successfully found New Camelot and the restored Round Table would be to reward Merlin's abetting Uther, meaning that the wrong is still active, even though Morgana herself is now dead and Gorlois's direct line has (presumably) come to an end. At the same time, we had to have Arthur set up New Camelot to satisfy the expectations that the series (including the television episode of "Pendragon") had been building up, so we couldn't have him simply die or abdicate in favor of somebody who hadn't been conceived through lust and deceit. (I considered the notion at one point of having it turn out that Arthur wasn't Uther and Igraine's son after all, but that would probably have been a cop-out.)

I discussed it with Ed at one point and he speculated that maybe part of the problem was Morgana's presence among the antagonists to begin with, even if it had seemed logical at the time (she was the one original opponent of Arthur's who isn't killed in the legends and who would have a convincing rationale - being an enchantress - for still being around in the modern world). It's worth pointing out that, though we know that Morgana would still be alive in Greg Weisman's Master Plan, there's no mention of her being an enemy of Arthur's, and that Arthur's main adversary in the Master Plan was Duval, who would apparently have been not an embittered foe seeking vengeance for wrongs, but someone trying to carry on the legacy of Arthur and Camelot via the Illuminati, but using the wrong methods for achieving this goal.

Of course, we whitewashed Morgana to a slight extent, in a sense; in Malory, there's no mention of her feud with Arthur having anything to do with what Uther did to her parents. (The "Pendragon-Cornwall" feud, in fact, seems to have been an invention of T. H. White's.) Instead, she's motivated by a simple desire to become Queen of Britain. We left that bit out to have Morgana motivated solely by revenge. And, despite the things that she did in the course of that revenge (such as setting up the Connection business in Season Three), this allowed the audience to have some sneaking sympathy for her on the grounds that the whole thing was based on avenging a genuine wrong done to her family as opposed to personal gain. (I find myself thinking about the Hunters here. The initial Hunters - Gillecomgain, Duncan, and Canmore - were all motivated as much by ambition and power-hunger as by hatred for gargoyles, and were done as straightforwardly villainous. The Canmore trio in "Hunter's Moon" were motivated purely by the "family feud" and the desire to avenge the death of their father, rather than out of any plans for achieving wealth and power, and that allowed them to be a little more sympathetic, more misguided tragic figures than out-and-out bad guys, with even such things possible as Jason falling in love with Elisa and realizing the error of his ways at the end - something that wouldn't have been possible with Gillecomgain or Duncan.)

Ed and I had planned for Sybil to succeed Morgana in a sense, though I suspect that she (Sybil) might have been a slight anticlimax in that her hatred of Arthur was more straightforward, and less "as much sinned against as sinning"; she opposed Arthur because he'd gotten in the way of many of her schemes and those of her husband in the past, during his reign, and was likely to thwart her ambitions still further in the present. (I'd worked out a backstory for Sybil that we only alluded to a couple of times in the episodes. She was originally married to the nephew of King Maelgwn of North Wales, one of the more important petty kings during Arthur's reign. Maelgwn began eyeing her, however, much as Uther had done Igraine, and proceeded to murder both his nephew and his first wife so that he could marry Sybil - and Sybil, instead of protesting these, actually helped Maelgwn commit these murders so that she could marry him and become queen. Maelgwn and Sybil then frequently opposed Arthur and his knights for constantly "interfering" in such practices of theirs as overtaxing the peasants in North Wales and attacking the smaller and weaker kingdoms on the borders of North Wales; Maelgwn even allied with Mordred in his war with Arthur, though he deliberately showed up late for the final battle in the hopes that Arthur and Mordred would wipe each other out, allowing him to take over Britain for himself. Maelgwn didn't long outlast them, however; a few years after the Battle of Camlann, a plague swept over Britain and Maelgwn died from it - and Sybil packed her bags and headed for distant parts by herself the moment that Maelgwn began to look and sound even the slightest bit sickly.) But I suppose that we might have still found some interesting things to do with her - and you can't have every antagonist be that complex. Even "Gargoyles" allowed a number of relatively one-dimensional bad guys (Jackal and Hyena, Sevarius, Wolf, etc.) alongside Xanatos and Demona.
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Jul 17, 2006 7:35:02 am EDT from 4.244.212.90

Lynati> <<I suppose it will end up there anyway>>: That, or on the walls.

HoE> <<Mr. Whipple would be shocked and appalled>>: I don't know, he seemed pretty calm as long as squeezing wasn't involved.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
posted @ Sun, Jul 16, 2006 11:07:24 pm EDT from 69.141.213.120

Harvester: Thanks for your review of 'Carbonek'. I love the last two parts of this. Gets the old adrenaline pumping.

Jennifer's role was pretty much written into the series after it was done (or nearly done). Originally, she wasn't much more prominent than a brief mention in "Doomed" and "Home for the Holidays". When I added her HftH scenes (I think it was felt the story was a little short on Jennifer/Arthur stuff), I introduced her quandry and then got a chance to add it into FFTE and then it seemed logical to put it in "Carbonek".

I don't remember Nigel's ending too clearly but I remember pushing for it to be more awkward between him and Mary than ever before. I think he's very conflicted at this point. I would have loved to have told all sorts of stories about Nigel at the House of Commons, especially regards the growing 'Arthur situation' as it slowly became more public.

Lucius -- I think the character seemed stuck in a rut. The idea of his blowing up his place was added in very late in the day. I think we needed to show what happened to Lucius so I wrote the scene straight. I felt that he had been too 'safe' in his schemes, and now he was becoming quite beyond giving a toss about the lives of innocents. He'd be more unpredictable and unstable. I wanted to see him became more desperate -- perhaps unleashing some kind of menace beyond his control, either a creature or a WMD. I think I'd have pushed for him to become more and more unhinged with each passing story, probably eventually ending up in some kind of psychiatric facility.

At some point we would have had to have had a story where someone broke Arthur's 'laws' but not the laws of the UK. So there would have been a conflict there if Arthur held a man officially innocent against his will. Although I imagine Tanaburs would have had a hand designing Camelot House so that it would be safe(r) for gargoyles than it might otherwise have been; this would make it difficult to pin anything on Arthur. Of course, we'd have had to have been careful to avoid it feeling too Xavier Institute or Hogwarts.

Season Five would have been a lot about Arthur navigating his way in the new world. Dealing with politicians and the media. Jennifer's business contacts would be useful. Duval and the Illuminati would have kind of taken up the place of Morgana as the chief bad guys, but this was complicated by the characters being used in different stories. I thought it might be fun to do a 3-way Illuminati story where you see the same events from the perspective of the Gargoyles, Pendragon and Bad Guys series but I doubt it would have got off the ground.

Sybil would have had a bigger role. Regina Fitzwalter would interview Arthur for Newsnight. I'd have liked to have put him on another BBC show, Question Time, where he might have faced a live audience.

We'd have really brought together the incidental cast. Kevin would have been Arthur's driver when he needed one, employed by the Camelot Company. A lot of other people would have been employed by the Camelot Company too (one of the reasons we stripped Jennifer of her business, so she was free to start again). Arthur would also raise funds from various means, including a partnership with the archaeologists from 'Lighthouse' whereby he would advise them on rich archaeological pickings. I imagine a book deal and suchlike would probably be a necessary evil too. A lot of our favourite characters from the London clan would be semi-regulars in Camelot, but in balance with the humans so it wasn't so much Gargoyles UK any more. Lucy would have been Griff's squires, Faulconbridge and his trio (their names escape me at present) would be the knights representing London. Just about all the secondary characters who had been important to Arthur would somehow be linked to Camelot House as Arthur realises that his network of allies is actually incredibly valuable to him.

There was some push for Arthur to move to Antarctica, or at least out of the UK, but I always felt that 'Pendragon' (as it had become) worked best in or near to the UK. Most of the supporting cast was there for one thing. And I thought it was interesting that Camelot wasn't a physical place but an idea which crossed borders. But there would definitely have been a lot of questing stories as well, though perhaps with more specific missions. One of the very first things I pitched for the series was that Arthur would find the Chariot of Morgan the Wealthy (I think that was it) which transported you anywhere you liked. It would have made travel in S4 a bit too easy; but I may have pitched it again for S5.

Taleweaver: I think there's a difference between the 'real world' with the 'TGS real world'. :) Kevin would have done the driving when necessary; Jennifer would have done the tax returns or what have you. This is the sort of mundane stuff that would have been explained away in a few lines. The 'real world' issues would be things like -- what's the point of Camelot in the 21st century? Why do societies and rulers rise and fall? The S4 plots usually derived from ethical issues; the S5 plots would probably have evolved more out of philosophical quandries.

Mainly, the question of Season 5 was: what is New Camelot? What should it look like, what should it do, how should it work? And we didn't really have any concrete answers, so as questions occurred to us, they would have occurred to Arthur and we would have explored them in stories. It would probably have felt a lot more organic than the random questing, though perhaps not as urgent.
Ed
posted @ Sat, Jul 15, 2006 9:12:40 pm EDT from 213.187.39.126

*slips in to correct an oversite in the tgs cr*

Happy Belated Birthday Lain.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Sat, Jul 15, 2006 8:35:48 pm EDT from 63.232.223.79

The CR is like old food...it never dies...it just goes bad...

Guardian- you may have a point there. ; )
Lynati
posted @ Sat, Jul 15, 2006 6:11:27 pm EDT from 70.243.66.50

Lynati: I went to the Gathering, didn't I? I think my sanity is long gone by now. :-P
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Sat, Jul 15, 2006 5:40:02 pm EDT from 69.230.95.99

Vinnie: I'm in the process of throwing together a Top Five for "Pendragon." That should hopefully be in the next few days.
Harvester of Eyes
"Wondering and dreaming, the words had different meanings.... Yes, they did." -Pink Floyd.
posted @ Fri, Jul 14, 2006 10:41:23 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

***** TGS CR INFORMATION UPDATE *****


CR ARCHIVE:

The archive has been updated to include the "week" of June 12 through July 10, 2006.

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/archive/


CR TIMELINE:

One update I neglected to mention in my previous update announcement was that of the Comment Room timeline. Per DPH's request, I included a notice of statistics which he posted in the forum regarding writers and contributors of previously published TGS stories and outlines.

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/archive/timeline.php


BETA PAGES:

The beta TGS website design has been augmented to include the staff credits, music (theme songs), and credits pages, as well as index pages for each series episode archive. The episode archive index pages and staff credits page feature a list of every episode for a series on one index page, utilizing the same JavaScript show/hide trick used for the CR Archive index page (as well as the collapsible navigation for the alternate beta page).

The JavaScript, and CR/episode archive pages and staff credits page are codes so that if JavaScript was disabled the "hidden" contents would still display and links would still "jump" to each section. Please Suggestions and comments on these pages are welcome.

(I will make beta pages of the artwork, and possibly resources, pages at a later date.)

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/dev/beta/


***** END UPDATE *****
Lady Mystic
Admin of TGS CR Information
posted @ Fri, Jul 14, 2006 3:09:56 pm EDT from 68.21.35.159

The CR is dead!
The CR is dead!
The CR is dead!
Unless someone think of something then wiping wont be a problem this room ever hasto worry about again.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Remember the old Gargoyles comics!
posted @ Fri, Jul 14, 2006 4:24:01 am EDT from 69.54.209.58

And forgive the double post, but just wanted to request a moment of silence for Roger Keith (aka Syd) Barrett. Shine on, you crazy diamond...
Harvester of Eyes
"Wondering and dreaming, the words had different meanings.... Yes, they did." -Pink Floyd.
posted @ Wed, Jul 12, 2006 7:10:59 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

What the hell is this, we're wiping at odd times now? Mr. Whipple would be shocked and appalled.
Harvester of Eyes
"We now know that within every fifth boy-child in America is a system of strings and pulleys operated by a small dwarf. This dwarf is an employee of the International Communist League. Here is a simple test to see if your child is really a costumed dwarf: hit him in the head with a hammer."
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 6:01:16 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Rightsider: <The government has a responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens (or non-citizens under its jurisdiction), even if that means mobilizing the entire U.S. military to protect just one individual. This applies to federal, state, and local government.> True. And the government just that when they forcibly ended segregation with the the integration of the public school system.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Remember the old Gargoyles comics!
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 4:02:08 pm EDT from 69.54.209.136

Uh-oh, Guardian C. is in the house...you gotta put your sanity in that jar by the door if you're gonna stick around long. Well...I suppose it will end up there anyway. ; )
Lynati
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 3:49:29 pm EDT from 70.243.66.50

Tenth! Ah-hah-hah!
Guardian - [Guardian_R105@hotmail.com]
Pardons, I'm still acting like a con-virgin
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 2:06:20 pm EDT from 69.230.52.26

9th!
Mecord's Cat - [piseag2048 at lycos.com]
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 10:55:57 am EDT from 71.35.246.62

8th this time around
silvadel
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 10:32:54 am EDT from 24.149.178.180

Seven!
Dezi
But why is all the rum gone?
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 10:03:27 am EDT from 68.58.30.120

I can count to six.
Starsinger
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 7:22:47 am EDT from 209.240.206.201

Incidentally, why do I have the feeling that, if/when the United Nations *does* pass that Gargoyle Protection Act, less than 24 hours later there'd be over a thousand posts on the Internet claiming that the Gargoyle Protection Act is proof that the United Nations is out to impose a satanical one-world-government headed by the Antichrist upon humanity?
Todd Jensen
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 7:15:58 am EDT from 4.244.208.181

Lady Mystic - got your lastest email and sent a reply that has 2 attachments.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 6:34:20 am EDT from 63.232.248.179

5th in the name of completing tasks that are overdue.

Real post to come later.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 3:28:47 am EDT from 63.232.251.205

Taleweaver: {Doing that for the sake of 2 dozen in New York is too far a stretch}

The government has a responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens (or non-citizens under its jurisdiction), even if that means mobilizing the entire U.S. military to protect just one individual. This applies to federal, state, and local government.

Might seem like an extreme view, but that's what I believe.
Rightsider
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 1:06:02 am EDT from 24.111.112.199

4th...

Vinnie> It's not a stretch to believe the ACLU would try, but I don't believe they'd succeed. Federal law impacts the lives of nearly 300 million people. Doing that for the sake of 2 dozen in New York is too far a stretch. Remember the heat Congress caught over the Schiavo case last year? The most flak came from the flagrant abuse of congressional power to pass a law in the case of one person.

A court case could be a more plausible venue. 9th, 10th and 14th amendments could kick in if you can prove gargoyles while not human are still deserving of human rights. 9th and 10th can be interpreted that since the Feds have known about the gargoyles for years and done nothing, justisdiction falls to the state and so on down to whoever takes the case first.

As for the UN, I don't know what shot that would have there. Someone upthread about how the UN doesn't have any soveriegnty over a collection of independant nation states. Plus the UN isn't famous for swift action. Gargoyle rights through the UN may take generations.

This leads to an interesting question. What would be the top three rights you think the gargoyles need first.
Taleweaver
Honor those the dragons heed in thought and favor word and deed
posted @ Tue, Jul 11, 2006 12:07:48 am EDT from 4.233.32.85

3rd.
Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
posted @ Mon, Jul 10, 2006 10:52:14 pm EDT from 69.141.213.120

Oh, and I was second.
Rightsider
posted @ Mon, Jul 10, 2006 8:22:05 pm EDT from 24.111.112.199

dph_of_rules: {No, this happens before the UN does its thing.} I stand corrected. And I agree, the U.S. should be the second country.

{I view New Camelot being established as a government by 2016}

2016 seems a little too close. It could take more than twenty years to establish a claim to Antarctic territory. Even longer to gain recognition as a sovereign state. And that's not even counting the problems of establishing a year-round settlement in Antarctica before the weather control was invented.

On the other hand, it has to be sometime in the next 50 years if it happens during Arthurs lifetime. The guys at least 45-50 years old in 1996. But then, he is a halfling...

Taleweaver: {If these alternate worlds don't meet, why do you need to know whether its canon or not?}

Just because other worlds exist doesn't mean they ever have to meet.

Mostly, it's just something I use to account for the fact that my stories don't always agree with Greg's stories. Although (as with TGS) everything up to and including "The Journey" is part of it.

It makes no difference from a storyline perspective. Though I did consider using the "many worlds" convention to modify some dates so that I could skip to the 2000's without losing 10 years of the characters lives--but then I decided that idea was unworkable and reset my first story to 1997. But not 1997 as we know it.
Rightsider
posted @ Mon, Jul 10, 2006 8:20:29 pm EDT from 24.111.112.199

First!
Todd Jensen
posted @ Mon, Jul 10, 2006 7:23:24 pm EDT from 4.244.209.53