John K's Animation Blog

[pap64]

I recently discovered John K's blog (the creator of Ren and Stimpy) thanks to enigmawing (she posted it on the best animated movie thread). I spent a great chunk of the evening reading it and wanted to offer my two cents.

First off, I loved Ren and Stimpy growing up, regardless of its grotesque animation and humor. I think John K is very talented and has some great knowledge about the animation industry.

For animation junkies my me it's a great blog thanks to some deep analysis of classic animation and its techniques.

But my biggest issue with him and his blog is that most of the time he keeps talking about how "old school was better" and bashes any modern production without truly giving it a fair chance (for example, he bashes Dreamworks for their 'tude in films, yet he doesn't even comment on the films' quality).

I realize that he is a frustrated animator that has worked on crappy shows, and the times he was given his own shows they were canceled right away. I also agree with many things about animation, about how classic animation was very inspired and full of life while the stuff from the 70s and 80s was really crappy. But, John K reeks of elitism and overconfidence, giving himself a little too much credit for his work on Ren and Stimpy (in one post he says how he and Ralph Bakshi "revolutionized" cartoons for a while).

Maybe it's just me, but I like to think fairly in life. Not everything was better in the past, nor everything sucks today. There's a lot of quality out there, and if you look past your bias you will find a lot to enjoy.

Here's the link and tell me what you think:
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/

Random, weird topic for a thread I know, but considering I just started my own blog (AHEMfilmstripmemoriesAHEM ) , it's interesting to see how people treat their blogs.

[Elladorine]

I was a huge fan of both The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse (which he worked on for Bakshi) and Ren & Stimpy back in the day, and pretty much have the same feeling about him as you do now. It's a great blog that I have to revisit every so often (glad you enjoyed it BTW ) and he's a very talented, knowledgeable guy, but sometimes his attitude just makes me cringe. I've read many other animation enthusiasts mention the following and have to agree: he's of the attitude that he single-handedly saved the entire animation industry because of Ren & Stimpy (which of course is along the same lines as the claim you read about he and Bakshi "revolutionized" cartoons). No doubt it was a major contributor that continues to have an impact, but his cartoons weren't the first and only that showed progression away from model sheet-tracing. He's openly bashed a lot of landmark animation from the same era as R&S, including anything from Disney and every animated show that Steven Spielberg produced through Warner Bros. He also seems to think that funny character animation is the only type of animation that should be produced in the first place, an opinion he's entitled to but not one I'd agree with. He also seems to think that only cartoonists should be allowed to write for animation.

You might enjoy checking out some scans from a 1993 WCK magazine; he was a huge contributor throughout its run (I used to have all five issues). He even did some ghost-writing for it under the name Tom Paine (claiming to be an animation historian) so he could specifically bash shows like Animaniacs. What makes the link all the more interesting is knowing that particular magazine was published around the time Nickelodeon let him go; I don't think his attitude has changed a whole lot since then. I understand his bitterness and frustration to an extent, but he wasn't reaching deadlines due to agonizing over insignificant details and kept pushing for questionable content on a show he knew was on a children's network. Yes, it's important to be as true to your vision as you can as an artist, but at the same time you have to have a little business sense.

[Super Aurora]

Yea I have to agree with both of you there. I've known John K to be an egostical person since i've been a fan of Ren & Stimpy. His prideful attitude is what mostly got him fired from Nick in first place. So it's no suprise that thinks lowly of any other animation besides his and that of the 40's to 50's.

I do think his claim of being one to "revolutionized" animation in 90's isn't 100% true. In fact animation it's self became a boom around that era. the early 90's had not JUST R&S, but those fab four of disney, Batman the animated series(which I think really is the one that change the face of how people percheive animation in US), Superman:TAS, and many others.

It's ironic that John bash Dreamworks since R&S was the one of the first to build a foundation on bathroom humor- which many cartoons and CGI movies nowadays use.

I do respect John for his awesome animation works and clever humor use, but I think he's too over his head about himself and his view on other works. When he made his return with R&S, it sux. too much emphesis on gay jokes and other crudeness. It wasn't witty or subliminal like the original.

I do disagree on thinking only cartoony stuff is perfect animation. Realistic stuff (like some anime) can also amazing. He needs to check out Akira or Ghost in a shell to know that. But probably won't since i beleieve he bashed anime before too.

That's not to say all his stuff he says in his blog is bogus. Some is actually true like when he talks about emergence of new animation directors in golden age of animation:

We don't really think about directors when it comes to Disney, because he himself was the dominant personality in the studio. He had directors for sure, but they didn't normally have a lot of freedom to paint their personal styles and worldviews into the pictures. It was all a matter of second-guessing "What would Walt do?" Even Ward Kimball - who is probably the most distinct of the Disney directors - is still pretty Disneyfied.

Disney was one of the factors in the Warner Bros. directors' revolution. In the 1930s, while most studios were frantically trying to figure out Disney's formula by copying him, the emerging WB directors had to have very strong personalities to go against the imitating hordes. Whenever something is successful, most people think it's because it has hit upon a magic formula. Most folks are afraid to go up against the herd mentality by being themselves - even though every modern cartoon is a lecture on "being yourself". If these cartoons were honest, the moral of the story would be "do what the committee tells you to do".

Even some of my art professors and animation professors said same thing in that emergence of new directors was because disney was the dominated word and so many others didn't have much voice over the topic.

[Lazario]

I never liked Ren & Stimpy. And he was involved heavily (I'm told) in the animation for Bjork's music video for "I Miss You." I believe that, because that video is one of my least favorites in her repertoire.

As for his attitude... ehh, he's entitled to it. Despite my feelings for the show, it was a huge hit and there are Godknowshowmany devotees to him or/and fans of it. He's owed something. Of course, if he never gets it- it won't hurt my feelings any.

[Super Aurora]

I never liked Ren & Stimpy. And he was involved heavily (I'm told) in the animation for Bjork's music video for "I Miss You." I believe that, because that video is one of my least favorites in her repertoire.

Yea he did do that. He also animate music videos for Tenacious D like the song "F*ck her Gently"

[pap64]

I realize that this is his blog and he is entitled to his opinion. I am just stating that at times it is very unfair without proper credit being given to the artists, all because he has a very high standard for animation and gives himself a little too much credit. Plus, we have the right to debate it especially since he makes such a big deal about it.

He gives us very, very deep analysis of classic animation, frame by frame and explains to us WHY these are great pieces of film. In contrast, he takes one frame of a modern show (usually a crappy PR shot), says how it's badly done, labels it as awful and goes to rant about how the 40s and 50s "were the best".

Example, in one post he bashes Dreamworks animation for their "tude" in characters. He doesn't offer any real criticism, which makes me believe that all he did was take the posters, say they suck and move one. He didn't see the movies (and if he did, he spent way too much time overanalyzing every single frame).

He used Kung Fu Panda as an example. Yes, in the marketing Po was advertised as a cool, bad ass fighter. But in the actual film, Po was very shy, self aware and even insecure about his talents. In other words, his "tude" was toned down in the story. If anything, John K should be blaming the marketing department for trying to sell characters with attitude, not the artists that worked hard to make the film a reality.

Plus, he really should see the "Art Of" books for Dreamworks' films. Regardless of the actual film the artwork is great, fantastic even (the Dragons book has some beautiful character artwork). So a lot of hard work is put into making these films.

In another example, he bashes Fantastic Mr. Fox because it looks like a furry picture. Yes, I agree that the character design resembles fursuits, but the actual film is great, the writing and acting is excellent and the puppets are well animated. I bet anything that had Up been a 2011 release, Mr, Fox would have won the best animated picture Oscar.

In contrast, Will Finn (Iago in Aladdin, Cogsworth in Beauty and the Beast), has his own blog where he analyzes modern animation while never degrading it.

http://willfinn.blogspot.com/

Maybe it's just my fair nature talking. I believe that not everything in the past was better nor that everything today sucks. Every era had some great things about it as well as horrible things. It's the nature of human evolution, we lose things while we gain other stuff, and many times not always for the better. But if we get fixated over something we risk living in the past too much and not enough time living the today.

And this is John K's problem. Once again, I understand that he is entitled to his opinion and preferences, but I simply can't stay quiet when he bashes some truly great stuff all because of a personal bias and beef he has with the industry.

[Lazario]

Based on your hunch, Pap, I decided to click on the Blog and... well, he's got "Tude" right there on the sideline thing. And "11 posts" so it says dedicated to going into details about it.

I know exactly how he feels. I'm not nearly as passionate about animation as he is. I don't mind the T-shirts with Taz and Bugs looking hip and stuff. I grew up with that. My friends played video games where the Looney Tunes gang did basketball. And there was nothing wrong with that. But he's got a real point. He mentions in one post about where "Cool" came from and who had it and how it doesn't come easy. It needs to be earned. He's right. And we've got way too much of the stuff that wants to play cool and hip but isn't.

Like how some people mistake Shrek for being - this is not one of John's examples - cool because he's sarcastic. A real sarcastic person would get so tired of the donkey, they would rocket him back to outer-space where he most likely came from. That ogre and donkey relationship dynamic almost reminds me of how insipid David Spade and Chris Farley were together in Tommy Boy. I AM David Spade in that movie (only not blond, maybe a little taller, younger, gay, and at least 30 pounds heavier). We do not find these people lovable, we mock them. Until they get the hell away from us.

I didn't bother to see the Dr. Suess movies. I saw Madagascar. 1 and 2. That was enough. And by the way, I remember vividly saying here that Madagascar was one of the worst movies of '05. I retract that statement. It wasn't bad. It was okay. But the way he talks about it is just how I feel about the new Where the Wild Things Are movie. It's not really unique at all. Certainly not to me. And it's not like my memory, it doesn't get me excited about the story or characters. And they hired people and/or voices that viewers would recognize from other newer movies or shows. That really bothered me. I don't want to be thinking in any capacity about The Sopranos when trying to watch a movie adaptation of a story that really captivated me and made me crazy-think as a child. That original story influenced my creativity.

My problem with modern animation is actually a lot like his though. I don't like that nothing has changed either. That it doesn't want to change because copying every other movie formula is profitable. That there is no sense of originality or trying to be unique. Saying that though, I'm not afraid to admit that based on Cars - I've stayed away from Pixar like it's my job. Other people inform me that Cars is not a good example of what Pixar can do and that I'm really missing out. But pretty much after Ice Age, Shrek, Cars, Happy Feet, and The Wild, I just couldn't take it anymore and walked away from that kind of movie. Only when a fellow horror fan told me to see Madagascar 2 did I. And of course I saw Shrek 2 just because Jennifer Saunders (Absolutely Fabulous) was in it. Happy Feet is a good example of why I usually steer clear of this stuff. Most of it felt like a feature-length version of that Shrek Karaoke garbage.

But Finding Nemo was great. Is that Pixar? Yeah it is. It's gotta be. And I remember how amazing Toy Story was. As for John, he really knows what he's talking about. Some people just don't care about the things that bother him. And I wish I could be them sometimes. Not care about the things that bother me. It's no fun always having to be so irritated by the status quo.

[pap64]

Like I already explained, there's nothing wrong with passionate about the things you love, and John K clearly loves animation to a flaw. What we are talking about is how his tenacity towards animation leads him to have a biased opinion of anything released today.

Once more, the 'tude problem doesn't lie in Dreamworks' artists, directors and writers, it lies with the marketing department that always want to sell the movies as being very, very, VERY cool. It sells the wrong image.

For example, I was set on hating Kung Fu Panda because of the dumb trailers and TV spots putting emphasis on how Jack Black was voicing Po and the movie's dumb humor. But once I saw the film I was moved by the story and was surprised at how great the story was. It wasn't groundbreaking or amazing, but was leagues above what Dreamworks did the year before.

Same deal with How to Train your Dragon. I thought it was not going to deliver based on the teasers and trailers (and believe me, I HAVE seen people brush off the movie because of the teasers) I saw. But the actual film is fantastic (and the fact that's been in the top three since release means it had good word of mouth). It also has great art and attention to detail.

I agree that the 'tude thing from the 90s was a silly fad. Even I noticed that when I was a kid. But, just because it was a fad it doesn't mean it defines animation nowadays, which is what John K is doing. He is using his sour experiences in the industry along with his bias towards the classics to form an opinion that IS unfair and not objective but very subjective.

But to be fair, there's one thing I agree with him COMPLETELY, and that is the "zombification" of cartoon characters for CG/live action films. He mentions how they have the tendency of adding "real" eyes onto cartoon figures, creating a disruptive vision of the character, and I agree it should be stopped. It's the best example of what he says about movies and cartoons being spearheaded by corporations: the WB saw how popular the Scooby-Doo and Alvin films and are now taking as many cartoon characters as possible and turning them into ugly CG features.

I never said his analysis was bad, just one that can get too unfair and biased for its own good.

[Elladorine]

Another article from WCK (I believe it's from the third issue), John K. interviewing Mike Judge.

Some highlights from the "Torture by Disney" section:

• They discuss Beauty and the Beast's colors (waste products and Burger King). Yes, long before the controversy of the DVD colors.
  
  The bashing of Oliver & Company (was it seriously supposed to be like a Bakshi film at some point? I'm not countering that but I've never heard this anywhere else).
  
  All Disney characters are alike. For example, Ariel is just Mowgli with long, red hair.

Anyway, to get back to the blog. I actually do agree with many of his criticisms of modern animation, especially this trend to make "realistic," ugly CG characters out of classic toons. What I don't care for is how any cartoon the guy doesn't like is automatically written off as complete corporate hackwork.

I think he was especially bitter when he wrote the Animaniacs review under the Paine name and really let loose; most likely that series [personally] represented everything about animation that made him lose Ren & Stimpy.

[pap64]

Another article from WCK (I believe it's from the third issue), John K. interviewing Mike Judge.

Some highlights from the "Torture by Disney" section:

• They discuss Beauty and the Beast's colors (waste products and Burger King). Yes, long before the controversy of the DVD colors.
  
  The bashing of Oliver & Company (was it seriously supposed to be like a Bakshi film at some point? I'm not countering that but I've never heard this anywhere else).
  
  All Disney characters are alike. For example, Ariel is just Mowgli with long, red hair.

Anyway, to get back to the blog. I actually do agree with many of his criticisms of modern animation, especially this trend to make "realistic," ugly CG characters out of classic toons. What I don't care for is how any cartoon the guy doesn't like is automatically written off as complete corporate hackwork.

I think he was especially bitter when he wrote the Animaniacs review under the Paine name and really let loose; most likely that series [personally] represented everything about animation that made him lose Ren & Stimpy.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! Grab your popcorn and Milk Buds, the Beauty and the Beast colors issue has a champion in John K!

About Oliver and Company, I think John K may be referencing to the colors and design used to depict modern day New York. Ralph's features were always "dirty" and darkly colored, and Oliver and Company I think approaches that kind of style:





Finally, he's partially right about the Disney design, but he is foolish to think that ALL characters look the same. As an example, here are Disney's first princesses:







Snow White was designed to resemble a little girl, and her features are somewhat cartoony. Cinderella was much more realistic and had more defined features, like her eyes, nose and mouth. Aurora is the more stylistic of the too, featuring a skinny waist, some angular features and a very defining lock of blonde hair.

The supporting characters and villains have far more distinctive looks. I think what he may be referring to is that since the features were done by the same artists and had refined a style of their own.

I think this was more noticeable in the 90s features, especially in the male and female leads. They all had the big eyes, the beautiful smiles and the big hairdos. They evolved, though, with Pocahontas, Hercules, Mulan and the rest being very unique in terms of looks.

[Super Aurora]

Another article from WCK (I believe it's from the third issue), John K. interviewing Mike Judge.

Some highlights from the "Torture by Disney" section:

• They discuss Beauty and the Beast's colors (waste products and Burger King). Yes, long before the controversy of the DVD colors.
  
  The bashing of Oliver & Company (was it seriously supposed to be like a Bakshi film at some point? I'm not countering that but I've never heard this anywhere else).
  
  All Disney characters are alike. For example, Ariel is just Mowgli with long, red hair.

Anyway, to get back to the blog. I actually do agree with many of his criticisms of modern animation, especially this trend to make "realistic," ugly CG characters out of classic toons. What I don't care for is how any cartoon the guy doesn't like is automatically written off as complete corporate hackwork.

I think he was especially bitter when he wrote the Animaniacs review under the Paine name and really let loose; most likely that series [personally] represented everything about animation that made him lose Ren & Stimpy.

That interview was f-ing awesome. When I was a kid, those two shows were some of my favorite of the "rebel" cartoons. I often compared the two. I do love the sense of silly humor in the interview. What I like about these two is that they just enjoy shit and are easy and relax kind of guys.

As for Disney portion, I totally see the who B&tB being...Brown. I even keep thinking that. The Ariel as mowgli is just a joke. I don't think John K serious thinks Ariel is just mowgli with different hair-do

As for the all them look same, sort of. I can see what they mean in the certain time periods generations. But I wouldn't say it's to extent like they shitty Moe stuff I see nowadays with anime such as: Kanon, Clannd, Touhou, etc.

[Kyle]

I check his blog daily. I do dissagree with a lot of it, but I can almost always see where he's coming from.

Edit: by the way, Johnk K has praised Both Toy story and Cloudy with a chance of meaballs. at least the closest to praise as you'll probably get from him. (basically he says these were the only CGI movies that didnt piss him off)

[Elladorine]

As for Disney portion, I totally see the who B&tB being...Brown. I even keep thinking that. The Ariel as mowgli is just a joke. I don't think John K serious thinks Ariel is just mowgli with different hair-do

Nah, I didn't read that under a serious tone, just found it entertaining. It's not too much later they talk about giving the 2-year-old daughter beer to prepare her for Beavis and Butt-Head.

[jpanimation]

John K. is full of himself, sure, but I enjoy reading his blog. It's a wealth of information and I was directed there by one of my teachers. I feel John K. is an extremely gifted animator, with an incredible talent for appealing characters and facial expressions (only matched by Chuck Jones), but I think he doesn't have a good enough grasp of the story side of things. He talks all day about appealing drawings and breaking down animation (it's obvious from those discussions that he knows what he's talking about) but not enough about story and it's here where he needs work. As evident from Ren & Stimpy, The Ripping Friends, and his various flash shorts and online pitches, he often sacrifices story for gags (as old school as it gets). Ren and Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon was pretty bad, and they gave him complete creative control; he made a boring show that's only purpose was to show off the vulgarity he couldn't do on Nick (once again sacrificing story for gags). While that can work (look at how successful Robot Chicken is), I feel it's his crutch that's holding back his shows from getting picked up. I'm not asking for continuing story arcs, just more involving stories that aren't entirely built around gags.

I watched his pitch for the JOHN K. PRESENTS variety show that features the George Liquor, He-Hog, Kraspar The Curmudgeonly Bear, The Heartaches, etc. and I really want it to come into fruition. He supposedly pitched it to Adult Swim a while back and since we haven't heard anything, I'll assume they passed (can't blame them, with Adult Party Cartoon and The Ripping Friends being such bombs). MAD Cartoons is probably what got picked up instead. He needs to work on his structure (while keeping his signature style we love).

[pap64]

Yeah, he's definitely the artist type, and artist types rarely get along with writers and corporate heads since they tend to dictate how things are done (I may be mistaken here, but if the documentaries on the Disney DVDs are any indication artists often had to sacrifice stuff for the sake of the film).

John K also did those Yogi Bear tribute shorts a few years ago. I personally liked the one with the changing Ranger Smith designs, making fun of the fact that the design was never consistent in the original series.

Also, it may just be me, but he doesn't seem to be the type that champions subtle animation (as in subtle facial expressions to convey a wide range of emotions). Even when sadness was needed he would go all out.

[magicalwands]

Yeah, he's definitely the artist type, and artist types rarely get along with writers and corporate heads since they tend to dictate how things are done (I may be mistaken here, but if the documentaries on the Disney DVDs are any indication artists often had to sacrifice stuff for the sake of the film).

Yeah, what you are talking about is when directors want scenes that are just so awesome but it does not work for the story of the film overall. Totally different to John believing a good drawing is most important. (But he is right to some degree!) Although, I do recall a scene from the Little Mermaid, where they had many tests but they could not get draw it just right and was very close to cutting it. It is the scene when Ariel reaches out from a hole from her Grotto during her "Part of Your World"

[Lazario]

Like I already explained, there's nothing wrong with passionate about the things you love, and John K clearly loves animation to a flaw. What we are talking about is how his tenacity towards animation leads him to have a biased opinion of anything released today.

Nobody is going to let his or anyone else's bias ruin something for them. I don't see how that could happen anyway. I'm just glad someone else has that tenacity. It makes for an interesting mix. I'd rather have him speaking out regardless of how disrespectful it may be to fans than everyone just blankly accepting everything as-is. If I were anyone else, I might take issue with him. But I'm me and I like what he's doing.

Once more, the 'tude problem doesn't lie in Dreamworks' artists, directors and writers, it lies with the marketing department that always want to sell the movies as being very, very, VERY cool. It sells the wrong image.

I'm sorry if I missed it when you said that the first time. But don't forget I've seen some of these movies too. The 'tude factor (though it doesn't always bother me) carries over into the movie most of the time. What he may be missing is that there's more to a 'tude than just eye and arm positions. Just look at that scene from whichever Madagascar where the hippo is being serenaded by the other hippo. No, not ala- Say Anything with some kind of feeling. No, like a pimp or a "playa." And a hugely elaborate musical number where he moans like a more raspy version of Barry White. That didn't exactly bother me. But whatever attitude the marketing is selling does usually carry over right into the movie. But my point is that when you watch these animated movies, more often than not what you get with characters is a type. And nothing more. Because they know the novelty worth of it is in the music, in the references to whatever movie is cool like The Godfather or Reservoir Dogs or something like that (and let's face it- we don't need that, The Animaniacs already ran the A-to-Z of movie references and did it with real humor instead of pure *wink wink*), and in the blank stereotype quality to whatever character. Like the nerdy Zebra or the loud-mouthed donkey. Whatever the voice actor can channel.

For example, I was set on hating Kung Fu Panda because of the dumb trailers and TV spots putting emphasis on how Jack Black was voicing Po and the movie's dumb humor. But once I saw the film I was moved by the story and was surprised at how great the story was. It wasn't groundbreaking or amazing, but was leagues above what Dreamworks did the year before.

I won't argue with you there. I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda and even if I had, I know that these movies make strong impressions on viewers. I'd say Toy Story was a masterpiece but that's always been my impression because it taps right into something so powerful even though it's so childish. I always thought that kind of quality couldn't be gotten through emotional appeals. That it had to be intellectual. But it doesn't. It just happens. Even moments that are supposed to be ridiculous are so dynamic. That one little alien toy in the machine that gets "picked," I swear that moment is so incredible. You can't think that one through. You can only be there when it happens.

I agree that the 'tude thing from the 90s was a silly fad. Even I noticed that when I was a kid. But, just because it was a fad it doesn't mean it defines animation nowadays, which is what John K is doing. He is using his sour experiences in the industry along with his bias towards the classics to form an opinion that IS unfair and not objective but very subjective.

I still see a lot of validity to what he's saying. Not because word for word he's right and you're wrong or something like that. But because he's right only it's the scenes in the movie that are unoriginal or interesting. For reasons he didn't even bring up. I tried to name off some. People tried to build up Happy Feet like it was the new Toy Story. That it would have a major effect on the viewer. That it would make you laugh and cry and all that. I did not laugh. I did not cry. I was not moved, I was irritated. Because I could feel they were selling me a way too heavy-handed, obvious, unsubtle: "this is good, you should like this, why aren't you having a good time? Everyone else is." It's like somebody telling you, forcefeeding you what to think and feel. Nothing came natural in that movie. And that is an attitude that I find in more than half of the CG movie output of the last decade. It doesn't come from the characters so much as the people making it. I almost feel like, because I know thanks to the bonus features for the Shrek DVD (those features being way better than the movie) how long it takes and how hard it is to make a CG animated film, I'm being pressured into having to buy whatever they're selling just because they're nervous it won't be a hit. Whether that's true or not.

I never said his analysis was bad, just one that can get too unfair and biased for its own good.

Well yeah I thought you did. It's okay though, as long as you see I'm not really contradicting you. I'm just adding something I'm not sure anyone thought of.

About Oliver and Company, I think John K may be referencing to the colors and design used to depict modern day New York. Ralph's features were always "dirty" and darkly colored, and Oliver and Company I think approaches that kind of style:



Finally, he's partially right about the Disney design, but he is foolish to think that ALL characters look the same. As an example, here are Disney's first princesses:

If I needed one more reason to like Oliver & Company, you gave it to me. And I just want to say that 1 image from Snow White is heady. Just pick one, any random one. Those first 3 Disney animated features are really a trilogy all their own.

[pap64]

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I think we may have John K's ultimate post... and its not because he is bashing Tangled.

As usual he criticizes modern movies for their expressions and animation (with Tangled being the prime candidate). The problem is that he used the word "gay" to insult the movie and stereotyped Disney fans for being gay.

Here's the post:
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/06/ ... mated.html

In my honest opinion, he is right in that Tangled looks very bland. I saw the trailer and I felt nothing. The characters looked boring and it simply didn't make me get excited for it. But trying to bash gay people in order to prove a point is ridiculous and very hypocritical of him (let's remember that at one point he tried to make Ren and Stimpy gay).

Worse, he took one of David Kawena's "Disney Heroes" pieces (likely without permission) to ask why Disney is making their movies so gay and goes to ramble about Christianity.

In other words, while he is trying to discuss why Tangled doesn't look that great he manages to offend gay people and Disney fans, all in one swoop.

Some might say that he is being humorous, but as a friend of mine said once, humor is anger with its make up on. It's clear that he wanted to attack the Disney style and its fans by calling them gay. It's obvious that he has some sort of issue that he is trying to thinly disguise through animation analysis, and I don't respect that.

I think I am done with John K for good. I don't care if he thinks modern animation sucks, but I have a lot of great gay friends (many from this forums) who are a million times more talented and intelligent than he will ever be. Someone's work should never be used against them, especially when trying to disguise some sort of hate.

[Super Aurora]

I think you're over analyzing into things. In this day and age, whether you support gays or not, people have the automatic habit of calling anything they disapprove or dislike: gay. I've done it numerous times in front of gays, and they don't take it personal since i'm sure even they are well aware of that bad habit many people have.

Just because people call something gay doesn't mean they hate gays despite what the first impression may make one think to believe.

[Elladorine]

As I was saying in the Tangled thread, he stresses that he has nothing against homosexuality but at the same time he's obviously intending it as an insult.

He's not saying "gay"as another way of saying "lame" (like many do in slang), he's actually making homosexual references with the male Disney characters he's posting images of (and yeah, I severely doubt that he got David Kawena's permission to post his artwork).

It's pretty obvious the guy has issues; this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.