Anybody remember "Gargoyles"?

[Venardhi]

Christopher wrote:

---

You're misremembering the chronology. Gargoyles premiered in 1994, a year after Jurassic Park came out, and only a few years after the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies and the Dinosaurs sitcom with their elaborate animatronic lead characters created by the Henson Studios. Any Gargoyles feature film would've probably come along in '96 or later, at which point the animatronic and CG technology would've been more than up to the challenge of creating convincing Gargoyles.

Not at all, I simply disagree that it would have done them justice. Compare Gollum, Caesar, Davy Jones and the latest Hulk to the CG characters in Episode I or Blawp and the monster Dr. Smith from Lost in Space, which are the only notable computer-generated 'performances' I can think of that came out of the 90s. Suits may have worked, but I can't imagine them being any more convincing.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

The problem with the World Tour was that it was intended as a serious expansion of the Gargoyles Shared Universe. If you have been to Weisman's blog, he talks about how Eisner wanted his own fictional universe like Marvel/DC. Gargoyles was intended as the cornerstone for that. They had large unrealized plans for King Arthur, the New Olympians, the Phoenix Gate and the Illuminati.

Yeah, I know this. I read the blogs he posted about each episode and all his various plans for like 12 unrealized spin-offs. I also recognize that he was told they got a 52 episode order for the second season (while preparing for 13-22) and the Avalon World Tour took care of a big chunk of that.

None of that changes the fact that by the end, the Avalon World Tour became very, very tiring. It got to the point where I was rolling my eyes and saying, "What mythological god is going to meet a member of the Pack or Servius or whoever THIS week?" and it got to that point like 10 eps before the World Tour was over.

It was definitely a good idea and I'm glad we got it, but it was 20-or-so episodes, which was way, way too many.

[Christopher]

Venardhi wrote:

---

Not at all, I simply disagree that it would have done them justice. Compare Gollum, Caesar, Davy Jones and the latest Hulk to the CG characters in Episode I or Blawp and the monster Dr. Smith from Lost in Space, which are the only notable computer-generated 'performances' I can think of that came out of the 90s. Suits may have worked, but I can't imagine them being any more convincing.

You're still thinking anachronistically, in 21st-century terms. I'm talking about a hypothetical movie from the mid-'90s, so I'm not talking about using CGI for creating performance. I'm talking about using animatronics and prosthetics for the gargoyle performances -- most likely actors/stuntmen in heavy prosthetics -- with CGI being used only for gliding shots and the like. That should have been clear from my references to the Turtles movies and Dinosaurs.

As for animatronics, they could be quite convincing if done by a top-notch studio like Henson or Stan Winston. Remember, most of the dinosaur shots that made Jurassic Park so convincing were actually animatronics by Winston's studio, with CGI used only for full-length shots of dinosaurs walking, running, etc. The state of the art of animatronics was very high at the time we're talking about, so a big-budget movie could certainly have used them convincingly. And Disney would've certainly been able to afford hiring the best.

But let's think about the specific Gargoyles. Most of them had basically human faces. Goliath, Demona, and Hudson could easily have been played by actors in Star Trek-like prosthetics -- Sirtis and Asner could've easily played their own characters, and maybe Keith David could've played Goliath if the costume had increased his height and musculature somewhat. The Trio are a bit trickier, but Broadway and Lex could've been redesigned with somewhat more human faces (though they would've had to cast a pretty small actor as Lex); Brooklyn's the only one who really would've required an animatronic face. And Bronx would've had to be a mix of animatronics in close-up and CG in walking/fighting scenes. And the wings could be simply part of the costume when folded; CG would only be needed when the wings unfurled or when the gargoyles took to the air.

[Venardhi]

You make a compelling argument, but I remain skeptical.

[gblews]

Whenever I hear anything about Gargoyles, I think about my little girl. She loved the show dearly when she was a kid. Actually she still does love the show though at 27, she's not so lttle anymore.

[_C_]

Or with a movie they could go all CGI. Hell, if they can make Optimus Prime look real, they can make Gargies look real.

[Christopher]

Venardhi wrote:

---

You make a compelling argument, but I remain skeptical.

There's valid reason for skepticism, because how convincing it was would've depended on the quality of the effects. With enough skill and budget, it could've been fantastic; if they'd picked a cheaper or less qualified FX company, it could've looked fake. Compare the first two Ninja Turtles movies with their strikingly convincing Henson-made animatronics to the third movie with its cheaper, faker-looking non-Henson turtle suits. (Or the Next Mutation live-action TV series where you could clearly see the "hidden" eye holes and neck seams on the Turtles' heads.)

_C_ wrote:

---

Or with a movie they could go all CGI. Hell, if they can make Optimus Prime look real, they can make Gargies look real.

Today, yes. But we're talking about whether it would've been feasible to do a live-action movie back in the '90s.

Although what I said about the quality depending on the skill of the execution is just as true of CGI as it is of animatronics, if not more so. With enough talent, time, and money, CGI can look incredibly real, but otherwise it can look quite unconvincing.

[_C_]

^Oh, believe me, I've seen bad scifi CGI. Sometimes it's charming, but sometimes it's utter crap and ruins my suspension of disbelief.

But I can't watch Jurassic Park anymore because THEY NEED FEATHERS!!! Augh.

I think my only fear if the Gargies ever got movies--back then or now--is that they'd make Goliath look far too beastly, and the way he's drawn led me to believe he's supposed to be ruggedly good looking, but nonhuman.

Taking Dragonball Evolution as an example(DON'T KILL ME)...I am a huge Piccolo fan after watching DBZ. I love me some big green antisocial asexual egg puking alien LOL But Piccolo was drawn like he might be a good looking fella, just green. And in the movie they managed to keep him good looking--at least to me, dunno what other ladies might say, but I thought he was still nice on the eyes.

[Christopher]

_C_ wrote:

---

But I can't watch Jurassic Park anymore because THEY NEED FEATHERS!!! Augh.

Oh, that's easily explained. Remember, they weren't real dinosaurs, they were the scientists' best approximation, built from splicing surviving fragments of dinosaur DNA with the DNA of a modern species. That can handily explain any discrepancies in their biology vs. what we've since learned about the real thing.

[Davros]

My age makes me think of this

Instead of the 90s cartoon.

[Admiral2]

Redfern wrote:

---

Unless you count Maggie Reed and the other genetically engineered feline gargoyles like Elisa's brother.

Sincerely,

Bill

Well, then, the one where cute talking animals weren't the main characters.

[Mr Light]

Never in my life have I heard them called "Gargies" before

[M'rk, son of Mogh]

Christopher wrote:

---

Oh, that's easily explained. Remember, they weren't real dinosaurs, they were the scientists' best approximation, built from splicing surviving fragments of dinosaur DNA with the DNA of a modern species. That can handily explain any discrepancies in their biology vs. what we've since learned about the real thing.

Plus there's no proof that all dinos had feathers anyway (they COULD have, but there's no proof for that) so the ones shown were obviously the not feathered kind. T-Rex is the perfect example of this. Yes, some of his relatives seem like they did, but no scientist is saying that it's definitely true for him as well.

[Christopher]

I think it's very likely that all theropods did have feathers, but that's beside the point. The point is that science fiction is always at risk of being contradicted by new science, but the conceit of how the Jurassic Park dinosaurs were created provides a handy excuse for any aspects of their portrayal that conflict with later scientific findings, whether it's about feathers or anything else.

[JD]

I've never watched this yet myself, but I've been considering it after hearing so many people speak highly of it here, and other places. If anyone is interested Disney has a video page with a lot of the full episodes on it. Based off of the season episode counts on Wikipedia, and what I counted while scrolling through the page, they do appear to be missing quite a few of them.