Original post at:
John K Stuff: Capitalism's Aims
My comment, not showing up after two tries:
""Managers aren't there to make money for the company, have no natural loyalty to anything except their own personal success-their credits, their bonuses."
This is true of all individuals at any level. No one is there to make money for the company; everyone is there for themselves.
"One simple regulation that could help (and did once) - Distributors Can't Own Products Or Manufacturing Plants
I'm no expert on rules in general or politics and legislation but some things just seem totally obvious - espcially when they affect the business I'm in."
The trouble here is that that rule is already in place for the auto industry. Most/all states in the US require that car manufacturers cannot sell cars directly to the consumer. That's why we have a bloated dealership system, which does bring money into the local salesman community, at the expense of both consumer and car corporation. C'mon by and I'll drive you through downtown Detroit and you tell me how well that rule has helped things.
Then we can go north of 8 Mile and you can complain to Eminem that his music, made on his own with more or less full creative control, is more corporately controlled than Elvis under the thumb of Col. Tom Parker..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Apparently mine is currently a global ban/ the internets is broken, since the following response to the thread from me isn't showing:
ReplyDelete""Making the kinds of cartoons that the people who come here to find out about cost a lot of money, take a lot of skilled people and take months to make even with a large crew."
Nick Cross, "Yellowcake"
http://pyatyletka.blogspot.com/2009/10/yellow-cake-complete.html
"
Joe Murray is on the verge of making a cartoon channel on the web. John could have done the same thing if he didn't insist on burning his bridges.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be an active choice on his part as opposed to a necessity brought on by bridge burning. I mean, that seems to b the point of the pos (in part); he doesn't think content creators should be distributors. Maybe it's just sour grapes, but I think his experience with Spumco.com as a distribution channel gave him a rational example of the difficulties of distributing work. On the other hand, internet distribution schemes have been evolving quickly, and while few people have been able to wring profit from them, a single failure in the past is not a guarantee of that failure in the future. However, it is naive of him to think dividing production from distribution is a cure all. It would be in his interests as an outsider, perhaps, as everyone would then share his disadvantages of no money and no in-company connections, but that is different than saying it is an inherently good thing for the industry. It would be good for JOHN, which is exactly the type of behavior he is complaining about in executives but fails to recognize (or at least publicly admit) in himself.
ReplyDeleteYes it has changed alot since Spumco.com
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to make money online with cartoons is advertising revenue. You really don't need a distributor.
I don't know about you guys but I think john's drawing style has taken a decline over the years. His stuff from the late 80's early 90's seems lightyears better than his recent stuff.
ReplyDeleteThere's a significant difference between the finished product you're used to from that time period and the rough stuff you get as an ongoing feed now. But the production method on new finished material is also different, and would have led to a certain degree of difference in the look and feel if it had been implemented at the time. I'm not certain John's style has changed all that much (tho I admit it has changed somewhat); you may just equate "things John worked" on with "John". When you see Bob Camp or Lynne Naylor or Jim Smith or Eddie Fitzgerald or many other people's stuff now, you can see who may have been responsible for certain looks in certain characters in various productions. It may be that you dislike the work of some of the people working on the newer productions, or it may be that in the raw stuff, you dislike either the rawness compared to polished product or John's basic style compared to the collaborative style from the old days.
ReplyDeleteJohn's style has changed alot. I mean you can tell by his doodles in his weblog. Compare that to say the doodles that are unofficial Spumco like his H-B artwork and some of his other artwork. He seems not to care much about using sructure anymore.
ReplyDeleteI actually commented on this to John a while back. It was when he posted a clip from his new George Liquor show with George mowing the lawn. I commented that I was disappointed with his use of flash now, and cg, and how it doesn't stand up to the quality of APC or the original R&S show. The comment was never posted.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, he doesn't really seem to use construction much in his drawings. If you look at his logo drawing at the top of his blog, there's some symmetry going on with the duck. Both arms are doing the exact same thing, as well as the legs. The beak seems awfully flat, and then who knows what the hell the duck is biting. Not sure if the silhouette is as clear as it could be.
One reason I decided not to bother with his cartoon college:)
I'm not sure the equivalent of his doodles have been put out there from before the end of SPumco's original RnS run.
ReplyDeletewhat in the fok am i dutch guy doing as a link in a yankee doodle blog which makes no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is mysterious that way, like an enigma wrapped in latex with a cartoon of a fat guy drawn on it being sold in a Japanese vending machine.
ReplyDeleteYour being confused is by far the funniest thing on the blog so far. Kudos!
Ted: There are enough on the Unofficial Spumco Site to make a rather fair comparison. And some stuff he has already posted in his Funky HB blog from back in the 80's. What he does today baffles me because he is such and advocate of good construction in drawing. Hell, just take today's Billy Bigloaf drawings. Some are decent, most of them are pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteJay:
ReplyDeleteYou can't blame him for using Flash however I find almost no execuse for the drawings. Even in 96 with Spumco.com, the drawings had a more of a organic feel. Now it's just doodles.
New comment not showing up in the thread (he seems to have banned everyone who was still talking in the thread from the thread)
ReplyDelete""The founders were not crazy about bankers or industrialists, as both tend to take more and more control from the people."
I think you mean "landed gentry" when you say "people"."
Forget it Ted, you and I both have been banned ever since The "Bob Camp's Still Upset with John" thread. It's really silly. I simply called bullocks on that Wild Cartoon Kingdom article and asked who's career was ruined because of Games. Oh well, if he wants to be so sensitive then he can go right ahead.
ReplyDeleteWow, he banned both of you? That sucks.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, that wasn't on his blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think I may have had a post or two after that, implying that's not why my posts are not currently showing up (it's possible I am in error as to when I last posted, and I may not have checked to see if it actually showed up). John seems to generally censor based on content he disagrees with, not on simple identity, but I must admit the current batch of censoring does seem more identity based than content based.
I note that the post now has this: "New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator."
A perfect time to encourage people to use renandstimpyshitstorm.blogspot.com
As for forgetting it; no.
I wanted to ask him why did he remove the link of spumboard(ren and stimpy fansite)from his blog?
ReplyDeleteI just noticed Iron maiden.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's because he knows that they keep on bringing up the R&S shit storm.
Well, we'll have to make sure it comes up everywhere then.
ReplyDeleteJohn K.'s lasted post is BS and it's really not hard to figure out why given the reason he was fired in the first place. Nick didn't want Stimpy's Invention because it was way behind schedule. He was fired for "non-deliverly of episodes" like Billy West has said and William Wray in interviews so it's not hard to believe. So any time Johnny says "they didn't want it to air", you all know what that really means.
ReplyDeleteHowever I will give credit that John has actually credited Bob for those storyboard drawings. He hasn't done so in the past on his blog.
ReplyDelete"So any time Johnny says "they didn't want it to air", you all know what that really means."
ReplyDeleteThe non-airing of Man's Best Friend runs counter to that idea.
Well Nick always hated George Liquor so that was not surprising his most prominent episode would never air.
ReplyDeleteJohn's the most original artist I ever met, and is surely one the most original cartoonists who ever lived. If he ever used a design of mine on Ren & Stimpy it's because I tried to do something in the R&S style that he pioneered and had figured out before I got there.
ReplyDeleteSeeing what you guys write about him here makes me infinitely sad. What is it about the modern world that leads people to attack and demean it's greatest people? Were Edison and Jefferson really jerks? Was Michelangelo a bum for missing his deadline on the Sistine chapel?
I can predict your response, which will probably be "Nobody's denying John the praise he deserves for his legitimate achievements, we're just..." But you are denying it. Don't be disingenuous. You are trying to be an obstacle to John achieving even more than he has already, which he's fully capable of doing.
-- Eddie Fitzgerald
"Nobody's denying John the praise he deserves for his legitimate achievements, we're just..."
ReplyDeleteEddie,
Then I will be perfectly blunt with you then. I think John has perpetuated alot of bull shit on his blog and it just ain't right. Justifying the clear lack of construction in his recent work, the down right denial credit to some of the Spumco Alumni, and the truth behind what went on in the R&S break up. There is no excuse for any of it. Everyone else refuses to talk about this subject in great length so why not here ? Why not have the objective view of a third party ? I think that is fair.
"You are trying to be an obstacle to John achieving even more than he has already, which he's fully capable of doing."
Actually Eddie, he has being is own obstacle with his general refusal to meet deadlines or budgets. I am sure there were content issues he has battled as well but that generally seemed not the case.
And yes, this is a bit personal. I felt he has banned one too many of my comments and let others attack me personally. That does irk me.
ReplyDelete"One reason I decided not to bother with his cartoon college:)"
ReplyDeleteI think John should re name his company Spumcult since that's more what it seems like everyday.
Eddie you know John has a history of putting other artists down and spinning things to make himself the hero of all things animation. He claims to know things that no one else teaches even though they're taught everywhere. He tricks young artists to give up they're dreams for working for big animation studios and instead work for him. He actrully encourages giving large amounts of money to him just for his blog posts and the information he gives on drawing can be found anyhwere. He just bases everything off of Bob Clampett and his own style so he thinks it's a rare gem that's better than everything else taught. At the end of the day he just wants new artists to think they're wasting their time so they can join him in his lost cause and he uses things like his story at Nick, as propaganda to feel sorry for him and his studio. The man is completely delusional. There are plety of artists who've made bigger achievements in TV animation but because they aren't John they don't count. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteJohn has had a fair responsibility in changing the face of children's animation, that can't denied. However, he makes everyone who has worked for him look like little more then assisstants. Bob Camp, Lynne Naylor, Bob Jaques very much respsonsible for the success of that first run of Ren and Stimpy. John has belittled their contributions by a great deal for years.
ReplyDeleteI just hate how everyone else whose had a hit animated TV show either ripped him off somehow or "because it's not cartoony it's bad". That type of logic is just silly.
ReplyDeleteI had more to do with the success of Ren & Stimpy than just about everybody combined except for John but hardly see it mentioned.
ReplyDelete"You are trying to be an obstacle to John achieving even more than he has already, which he's fully capable of doing."
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting, Eddie (and thanks for signing your name; everyone else posting without a signed in ID, please sign, and please do so with a consistent name whether or not it would identify you outside of here, so we can tell you apart).
Please keep in mind that this blog is not meant to be an obstacle to John (except to the extent he wishes to stifle conversation, in which case this blog is meant as an obstacle to that particular behavior); it is meant to give a forum to the many people silenced in many conversations relating to Ren and Stimpy, Spumco, and related personnel/projects, which I would think would help those who are censoring others by giving the people they are censoring a place to go, relieving the pressure form the places where their post are not welcomed. Much of that censored content is admittedly criticism (and a percentage of that criticism is unthought out and of no value). (I do not speak for individual posters other than myself; for my part, I hope my criticisms of John strengthen him by giving him access to viewpoints other than praise; I want him to succeed in creating more cartoons for me to heartily enjoy.) However, praise is welcome as well, especially when it opposes criticism that can primarily be found here due to it being disallowed elsewhere; that is at the heart of conversation, not a single viewpoint. I hope your post will encourage others who wish to respond to posters censored elsewhere to respond to those posters here, as this may be the best forum option those who wish to criticize have at the moment.
I am not aware of you disallowing posts on your blog (as you do honestly come across as one of the nicest guys in the world), but if you do, please encourage those posters to come here. Please encourage everyone to come here. And please return often yourself, as your contribution is valued here.
Jim, I'm happy to hear you toot your own horn. That's what the classic WB directors all learned, right? That you need to get your own story out there?
ReplyDelete(If you're criticizing the order of links, it wasn't meant as a slight that you're physically lower on the list; you were actually one of the first links I added, but new links go over old ones that are added, I need to manually move them around to make then not that way, and I'm lazy; if you feel strongly about it, I'll move the link higher.)
Thanks for posting. Feel free to send unwanted posters from your blog here, and feel free to continue to join in. Your participation is welcome.
Uh, what are you talking about Ted?
ReplyDelete"I had more to do with the success of Ren & Stimpy than just about everybody combined except for John but hardly see it mentioned."
Really that's a shame. I learned the same thing about Bob Camp. John's a total egomaniac.
Nice to see you here Jim.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't censorship for a person to moderate the comments on his own site. When I was running spumco.com, I had no problem deleting posts that crossed over the line. Free speech means that you are free to have your own blog and chat on to your heart's content about your own business. But that doesn't mean that John is obligated to let anyone sidetrack his posts with irrelevant and uninformed comments. I've been suggesting for some time that the best way to keep the focus on the subject is to regularly pull the weeds.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the TV news where they have a reporter at a breaking news story about a murder or armed robbery or rape and some idiot in the crowd starts making faces at the camera over the reporter's shoulder. If you are a seasoned reporter, you don't get in a shouting match with the jerk, you just pick up the camera and point it the other direction.
So now you want to punish John for for not being allowed to dominate the conversation? I've seen it before. There is a line that certain people cross sometimes where they change from being fans to being vampires. When a commenter who is speaking just to feed his own ego turns from just being self-absorbed to being jealous and spiteful, there's no reason to ever bother with him again- just delete his comments unread.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI don't think people like Ted or me could really punish John. I think Ted articulated it best but this blog is about some the more contriversal topics John refuses to cover. Of course that his right but it's also our right to have a public discourse on said topics.
Rick: By way of an answer to the note you sent to my blog: it's depressing to see a good friend slandered the way you've slandered John here. I don't know how you do a thing like that and still sleep at night. I'll take down the note somebody wrote to me hammering you, because you won't be able to defend yourself, but please, no more comments.
ReplyDeleteEddie
"It isn't censorship for a person to moderate the comments on his own site."
ReplyDeleteSure it is. Just because it's not the type of censorship that isn't constitutionally prohibited doesn't make it not censorship. Your point that John isn't obligated to post anyone's comments is true and should serve your purpose perfectly well (except that it isn't a criticism here; I don't recall anyone saying John is obligated to not censor his blog; certainly not me).
"So now you want to punish John for for not being allowed to dominate the conversation?"
So, continuing a conversation John (or any number of other forum administrators) doesn't want (or perhaps that he simply doesn't care about or that he might enjoy, if he is blindly censoring based on source) is considered punishing John? An open forum is _punishment_? Does he view his blog as punishment for others?
Thanks for posting Steve. Feel free to continue to join in. Your participation is welcome.
Edit: "it's not the type of censorship that isn't constitutionally prohibited" should be "it's not the type of censorship that is constitutionally prohibited".
ReplyDeleteThis blog is punishing nobody. It's just a place to openly talk about things uncencored. Like Ted said, nobody is critizicing other bloggers for not talking about things we want to talk about, but how is creating a blog where we can, punishing them? It's just free speech amongst ourselves and anyone can join in if they disagree with anything.
ReplyDeleteEddie:
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you do, I still respect you.
Anyway getting back to the point of this blog, John didn't approve my comment about when Stimpy's Invention first aired. He said on his blog Nick didn't run it until 1995. However everywhere I look up says Feburary 23, 1992.
I believe John was quoting another poster who was not posting for him/herself in that thread (tho the reasons for that are obscure; perhaps he denied the message accidentally, then reposted it via his own account when he realized it was denied).
ReplyDeleteWell then I guess who ever he quoted is certaintly wrong. There was no way SI didn't air until 1995.
ReplyDelete(Sadly, Eddie seems to have chosen to not allow a purely informational response from me re: both versions of The Old Dark House appearing on TCM soon; perhaps he's saving it for a special release closer to the air date...)
ReplyDeletesteve is always there to defend john.
ReplyDeleteJOhn is always there to take advantage of young artists and not pay them. but "train" them to copy his wonky drawings.
"JOhn is always there to take advantage of young artists and not pay them. but "train" them to copy his wonky drawings"
ReplyDeleteExsactly.
"steve is always there to defend john."
ReplyDeleteI just wish for once, ONCE he would actually confront his critics like a man. He should clear up his broad statements. Instead, he dismisses all of them as his inferiors in the safety net that his followers provide for him and he provides for himself.
John has often confronted his critics ("like a man" is a kinda subjective thing; I'd argue that as John is a man, any way he confronts his critics is "like a man", as it is literally "as a man").
ReplyDeleteJohn does not always confront his critics, certainly does not always directly confront his critics, and appears to often try to simply silence views (or people, or forums) he disagrees with, but it is inaccurate to say he never directly confronts his critics. If you epect John to respond HERE, I will point out that it is unrealistic to expect John to respond here to response posts he could have chosen to post on his own blog comments. John has a place to get his POV out; that's his blog (tho he is welcome to post here if he should choose so to do). This is a place for the wider conversation.
It is also unfair to (blame?) Steve for defending his friend, or to derogate him for stating his thoughts/opinions on the topic, which is after all what we are all doing. While Steve's viewpoints seem to often track with John's, I have no reason to believe Steve's stated views are not his own. Disagree with his thoughts/opinions all you want, but sharing thoughts/opinions is the whole point of this, and I submit it is internally inconsistent to criticize the act of sharing thoughts/opinions on a blog formed in response to a failure of other places to allow such sharing.
"John has often confronted his critics ("like a man" is a kinda subjective thing; I'd argue that as John is a man, any way he confronts his critics is "like a man", as it is literally "as a man")."
ReplyDeleteNo I never said he has never confronted his critics. I said he should confront his critics like a man. And IMO, being a man is not half assing comments. You drive your point straght on and don't stop until it's made coherent. What John does frequently is make broad statements and rarely retracts them when he is confronted with a far more cerebral response. You actually have the example linked here with the debate with Micheal Barrier were he did it several times.
And Yes I would like John to post here, or at his blog, about clearly up the many lies he has spread. This request is not unreasonable.
And no, I don't blame Steve for defending John either. Or Eddie for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe blaming Steve was directed at David's comment (which only implies a criticism, admittedly, but I wanted to clarify the point); sorry, I should have made that more clear.
ReplyDelete"Lies" are often spin. The point of spin is to create a misimpression or be misleading as to the full set of underlying facts, but without being literally untrue.Note that opinions are incapable of being lies if they are actually held by the person giving the opinion.
There is also a high degree of likelihood that many things said may be technically true from a certain point of view. Combined with the fact that labeling something "lie" tends to create a non-conciliatory atmosphere where a thought based answer is unlikely to be forthcoming, it might be better if you recouch your position to assume that statements you are labeling lies are in fact spin. The best way of exposing spin is to get greater explanation. So, for example, a politician might claim "My opponent voted for drugs for kids"; it would be more effective to ask "are you referring to the prescription drug plan for poor children your opponent voted for?" instead of simply calling the politician a liar (which would be provably untrue in this case). While not as effective, it would also be more effective to call the politician a misrepresenting son of a bitch regarding the drug claims than it would be to simply claim he was a misrepresenting son of a bitch.
Directly calling something spin that appears to be spin is not especially likely to result in answers either. Raising specific questions regarding explanation of specific comments are the method most likely to result in such explanations. Certainly more likely than the blanket "explain your lies" approach.
Alright then if you put it that way to be specific. I would like him clear up things such as the venemous Wild Cartoon Kingdom Articles and other articles related to the Ren and Stimpy breakdown. Spefically, labeling Bob Camp as a cowardly traitor to the Spumco crew. That has been one the his greater stains on his reputation. I don't know how John can skewer someone like that with such amazing talent and a clear influence on his style.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing would be passing off his clearly poorly constructed drawings as fine artwork. He seems to apply only one lesson in his drawings and it's line of action in his wonky drawings. There is no sense of the principles of cartooning art in these recent Kaspar The Un-Friendly Bear doodles. Also some of these recent George Liquor drawings are to say the least. Surely John can confess that these drawings clearly lack much of it professes on his blog, anyone with eyes can see that. The only thing he could possibly say is "It's just my style", the cardinal sin of passing bad drawings as good ones.
And last to amplify on the Micheal Barieer debate example, his inane dismissal of Carl Barks. Those were not "simple, boring kid stories". Unlike Disney Cartoons, Barks dived into many dimensons of human characteristics and constructed his stories with great themes which included sexual fusteration, the satisfaction of ego, setimentalism, and the corruption of great power. Bark's Donald Duck is far more complicated then any character John has ever come up with. Donald was characterized the villian, the hero, the fusterated worked, the love lorn smuck, a hustler, and the overall common man.
Well leaving a few things out, that just about cover it.
Have you seen John's latest blog post? It's funny how when his artists publicly call him on his bullshit he starts licking their ass.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good and proper thing for John to highlight the contributions of his collaborators. If he does it because they want it to happen, it shows he's at least responsive to someone else's needs. If they express a need/desire and John responds to it, I don't see how that's bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another half assed tribute. One post about someone else's drawings then back to the John K. shit doodles on line paper.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying the post's appearance is unrelated to this discussion. I am saying it is counterproductive to shit on him for positive behavior (and I find praising people he has worked with to be positive behavior).
ReplyDeleteHaving a chapter in the book on Jim that has been in development for awhile would indicate he's not simply recognizing Jim in response to this discussion, even if the particular post/timing of the post might be related. I would hope Jim would actually make more posts on his blog talking about his work on RnS; it's not exactly John's regular responsibility (tho it certainly is within the potential scope) to discuss on his blog the contribution of everyone he's ever worked with (tho in the context of a history of Spumco, discussing the contributions of various major players would be a responsibility).
A perceived lack of recognition of the contribution of others to John-related cartoons is at least an implied criticism in this thread. If John takes that criticism to heart and acts in such a way to attempt to remedy that perceived problem, I think he should be congratulated regarding such corrective measures. Rewarding him for such behavior is more likely to lead to continuance of the behavior compared to punishing him for the behavior.
I think it is unrealistic to expect a constant stream of praise posts under any conditions, but a periodic series of them seems more likely if he is encouraged for them instead of attacked.
I wonder if anyone has considered a RnS/Spumco individual blog? Like Bob Jaques' Popeye animator blog, which tends to focus on the individual work within the Popeye cartoons of people involved in those Popeye cartoons.
"I am saying it is counterproductive to shit on him for positive behavior (and I find praising people he has worked with to be positive behavior)."
ReplyDeleteI think it's postive behavior when it feels genuine. That recent post was just a quick response, as usual, for being a turncoat. I would like to have seen a sincere apology for being a credit hogger, ESPECIALLY to Bob Camp. I'll give him the Bob Jaqyes one for BIG HOUSE BLUES but he said almost nothing about Kelly Armstrong.
"I would hope Jim would actually make more posts on his blog talking about his work on RnS; it's not exactly John's regular responsibility"
He does on an almost regular basis by posting R&S artwork for sale and asking questions in the orgins of it by commentators.
I know he started posting more art recently. But I think he'd be doing his legacy more good with more expansive text.
ReplyDeleteJohn doing these posts is like when politicians apologise when the get caught cheating. I mean when everyone can see you obviously you have to do something like that, therefore if someone brings up that he's known for stealing the spolight away from other artists, he can just point to these posts and a rebuttal. It took Jim Smith, Bob Camp, and Bob Jaquez to call out John publicly on the net for him to give them the credit he never gave. Thats not being genuine, that's playing nice when you're caught with your pants down.
ReplyDelete