Anybody remember "Gargoyles"?
- Thread starter _C_
- Start date
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.)
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.
^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.
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.
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.
Well, then, the one where cute talking animals weren't the main characters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it was good, almost as dark as Batman. There were a lot of good cartoons back then, especially from Disney. Loved Goof Troop, Tale Spin was Air/Steampunk before there WAS Air/Steampunk, and Bonkers was a great spiritual successor to Who Framed Rodger Rabbit and a great homage to old school cartoons.
Well, I liked those too. They were just a different type of cartoon.
We are totally twins.
JD, watch it, it's really good! If you like it, please consider buying the DVDs of season 1 (13 episodes) and season 2, part 1 (26 episodes). There's still a chance Disney will release the missing 26 episodes of season 2, there are a few shows that get continued after years of nothing.
I just remembered something weird about the first episode, the opening sequence was shown at the end right before the end credits. I get that they didn't want to start the episode with the opening because it would have spoiled what was going to happen, but why didn't they drop it completely from that episode?
I just remembered something weird about the first episode, the opening sequence was shown at the end right before the end credits. I get that they didn't want to start the episode with the opening because it would have spoiled what was going to happen, but why didn't they drop it completely from that episode?
Loved the show a lot. I think I learned more about Shakespeare from Gargoyles then I did from High School english class
You had Macbeth and characters from it and then you had the fairies from Midsummer Night's Dream.
Although, of course, Gargoyles's version of Macbeth was far more historically accurate than Shakespeare's. (The king at the time, James I, was believed to be a descendant of Banquo, so Macbeth had to be written as a villain. It may be that Shakespeare's own sources for the play were themselves distorted and propagandistic in their portrayal of Macbeth, since history is written by the victors and Macbeth lost.) Most of the human monarchs and nobles who appear in the historical flashbacks in the show were real people, aside from the Castle Wyvern characters.
As somebody who's probably descended from Duncan, I've kinda always preferred Shakespeare's take...
I never said I hated the others, just that Gargoyles was a refreshing change.
(DuckTales, Talespin and Darkwing Duck were the best of the rest...)
What about Rescue Rangers?
Back to Gargoyles, I never saw the 'new animation' season 3 eps until I did my rewatch. I take it they used Jasmine from "Aladdin" as a model? That animation was wretched
They're okay, but they can't beat dialogue like this:
"I am the terror that flaps in the night! I am the toothpaste you can't squeeze back into the tube! I am DARKWING DUCK!"
Similar threads
