enigmawing wrote:It's pretty obvious the guy has issues; this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
I agree with you. Now. I know I'm a little late but there's no denying it any longer.
I officially take back all defenses I registered previously in this thread of his point of view and opinions regarding everything he spoke about in his blog.
Bad habit or not, there's no excuse for it. It's immature, stupid, and obnoxious in every sense of the words.
I'll give John K the benefit of the doubt and say that he Googled Disney Prince and found David's pictures (I just did and many of them appeared). Still, his argument is weak. How is this different from when artists take the Disney Princesses (or any female character) and turn them into Playboy models, complete with bare, big breasts and lots of cheesecake? What's his argument then? That modern animation turns kids into perverts?
The sad part is that he makes a good argument about Tangled. I saw the trailer and thought how the characters looked generic and bland, and he points that out very well. But then he has to make all these generalizations and comments about homosexuality and his whole credibility is shattered.
We all know that John K is an "edgy" guy with a very loose tongue, but that's no excuse for his broad statements and gross generalizations. Regardless if he thinks Disney animation is the product of the devil he should know that there are many, many, MANY people that love Disney and that there's a huge gay community that WILL speak out against him. Yet he still went ahead and did it, insulting out intelligence, unfairly stereotyping the Disney fan and making a very gross statement about homosexuality in general.
Is it any wonder he can't get a project green lighted anymore?
pap64 wrote: and that there's a huge gay community that WILL speak out against him. Yet he still went ahead and did it, insulting out intelligence, unfairly stereotyping the Disney fan
To be honest, I honestly don't think he knows that Disney has a huge gay fanbase. Before I came to this forum, I never thought of it either. Actually I was rather surprise how large of gay community go to this forum.
pap64 wrote:Is it any wonder he can't get a project green lighted anymore?
Mostly cause his ideas are radically against the norm of what TV production churn out. Usually he always have feud with the producers or exec that try change his view on the production. This is how he got fired from his own show, Ren and Stimpy by Nickelodeon. He's always doing something on a show because he wants it on not what the audience might want. Which I do think can be a negative problem.
Most often he work for doing online flash animation now, like he did for one of Tenacious D's music video.
I haven't read everything he's done, but did the Tangled post.
I'm gay and, well...I'm not hating or against this guy.
Admittedly, when I first read it, I was, but I calmed down and thought about it.
This guy really seems to be saying that the male leads shouldn't look gya because...they are supposed to be in love with girls, in te films.
Of course, there is the wondering if the princes are secretly bisexual or even actually gay and they are just with the girls for fairy tale appearences and society back in those times, a theory I kind of like, but anyway...
He may also say they look gay because they look so handsome and pretty. Now, there may be something right and there may be something wrong about this. For the right, I don't think our Disney protagonists should be so good-looking, because after a while you do start to wonder if love is only for the good-looking. Even though when you're in love, people are beautiful to you and you want to look nice for them. So if he wants more edgy, different, unique-looking guys who don't have to be attractive, I understand that.
But he only says this of the man, which is telling, because then it might mean he thinks guys don't have to look attractive...but then girls do? Now, admittedly, in so, so, so many shows and films, often an unattractive guy is paired with an attractive women. But no matter what the reasons, that is a big, big problem, making women think they have to look a certain way but men don't. It's a male domimated society, still.
Now, it's true that girls do tend to care more about their appearence than men, and try to be pretty, but Rapunzel hasn't just grown her hair long and put on lipstick. She's very physically attractive. And if the girls have to be, the guys should be too. At least in this respect Disney hasn't been sexist (except Beauty and the Beast but that's not really sexist in that way, she gets a hottie in the end), and they provided something for females to enjoy.
Still, the way he's going about it and calling so many things gay that aren't is still wrong and shows he probably isn't friendly and accepting enough of homosexuality. But he's not completely against it if Ren & Stimpy were a little gay.
So...I love Ren & Stimpy and I may have problems with this guy but I'm not hating him...yet.
I also want to address how this guy wants to do what he wants to do in his animation and not what the audience wants.
That is very admirable, and you know, even Walt Disney wanted to do some things that he thought was good that the audience might not like. Some things, like a lot of stuff in Pinocchio, I think he did do. But other things he held back because he din't think the audience would like it.
You should only make things how you think they should be when you are making art, which is what I think Disney and even some John K stuff like Ren & Stimpy is. Art can be gross and perverted, you know.
Now that I think about it...I wonder if Pinocchio and Fantasia's failures (and did Bambi fail?) taught Walt that if he wanted hits he had to scale back some of the stuff he wanted to do. And now those are considered the best, artiest films of his. If only, if only he didn't hold back, if only he didn't think of what the audience wanted, what would all his other films be like?
