Buddyfink's Reviews: SpongeBob SquarePants - Face Freeze!

  Here is my first review on my blog. This review is going to be about me taking a good look in the episode of the notorious SpongeBob SquarePants that I have one different opinion on than the majority of people that I see critiquing this episode. That episode is none other than "Face Freeze!". In my opinion, I actually like this episode, shocking to say.

The premise of the episode is similar to that of the Season 1 episode known as "Hooky", as both episodes have Mr. Krabs warning Spongebob (and Patrick in "Face Freeze!") about something he's doing as wrong and the latter getting punished for doing so. This time, it's about making silly faces instead of playing around with hooks.

Honestly, the faces that Spongebob, Patrick, Squidward, and Mr. Krabs are the main highlights of the episode. Many people that I've seen had highly criticized this episode for that reason, which I can understand. Some people are squeamish on those crazy faces. It's an acquired taste for some people, it seems.

In order to see why I like these designs so much, we need to take a look at them themselves. It may not be for the faint of heart for some people, but I have to show what I'm talking about. If you don't like what you see, prepare your barf bags. I don't have one though, considering I don't get sick over wild expressions

Robertryan Cory, the artist who did most of the faces in the episode (I think. He might've done all of them), has shown to be talented with drawing these faces, as the characters are distorted beyond belief and given such flair and insanity that I can't help but love. I give props to him for that talent alone. The creativity in these faces are off the rails!

Why do I like these wacky expressions so much? Well, it's because I'm into surreal and bizzare, and highly detailed stuff. These faces that are presented in this episode remind me of the works of Basil Wolverton, who did similar surreal expressions. It's a good reminder, as I think his style is awesome.

Some people may say that it would give kids nightmares and it's a bad thing, but I think differently. Some kids are into that sort of stuff, since Garbage Pail Kids, The Trash Pack, and Wacky Packages were popular. Not all children are alike, so some may do so. That's a side effect to many pieces of media: there's at least someone who's scared of them.

Honestly, I think people are giving flak to this episode because of the faces alone, and that would be the reason it was infamous. If "Face Freeze" had Spongebob and Patrick do funny faces that didn't go over the rails, would it be as infamous as it is now? Maybe, maybe not.

The writing on this episode is good too, as the humor and focus is on the funny faces. There's a clear direction on what's going on without padding, as parts such as Spongebob and Patrick showing the world their permanent funny face is a direct parallel to Mr. Krabs' story about Fred (the "My Leg!" guy) showing his faces to people, and foreshadows what's to come. There's a purpose to many of the scenes in the episode. Visual gags are also a highlight, as the faces are the main highlight.

Overall, I consider "Face Freeze!" a hidden gem, and I feel different from the popular opinion on this episode. I feel like it's okay for me to like it and for others to dislike or like it. After all, different strokes for different folks.

Anyways, that's my review on this episode. If you have any comments or problems with my review, please comment away. Your feedback can make my reviews better. It's alright to disagree with my points, since you're free to have a different opinion from me. 

Buddyfink's Reviews - Introduction

  Hey there guys! It's me, Buddyfink here with a new series I'm doing. This is about me reviewing animation (cartoons, episodes, etc.) and what I think about said topics. I will start off by saying these things before I get going:

1. Even though I might criticize some animation, it is not me stating that the people who made it are bad people or shouldn't make animation at all. I am merely wanting these people to improve in what I think they should. If they don't take it, it is okay. I am not forcing them to take my critiques. They have their views and I have mine. I am just merely stating my opinions on the internet. If any people who're working on these shows see these reviews, please don't be offended by what I say about your works.
2. Some of my opinions on certain shows are different from the popular view. What many people consider a bad cartoon or episode I think is good. Sometimes, I think the opposite, or on the middle ground. I'm no Armond White, who thinks the opposite of the general reception on movies (popularly good ones are bad, while infamous ones are good) mostly.
3. I make these blogs for reviewing cartoons instead of making videos about them in order to respect copyright. I'm only going to provide images for the episode instead of showing video footage because of that stated thing. While fair use states that you can use copyrighted stuff for comment and critique, I am not risking that at all. Besides, I have no experience in video making.
4. Please don't harass the people who make these cartoons. It would make you the worse person for doing so. If you don't do that sort of thing, I am happy for that.

Since that is out of the way, expect some reviews on certain cartoons that would come on their way in the future. I wish you good times as I'm off doing my own thing. See you soon!

The Big John K. Rant (Part 6) - Conclusion

  Now you may be asking yourself, "Why did Buddyfink make this series of blogs in the first place? It's been out there in many places". I've stated some of my reasons in the introduction, except for one. That reason being that I used to idolize this asshole.

Like many who didn't know the whole story of John and his sordid past, I made him one of my inspirations for drawing. His wacky style on The Ren And Stimpy Show inspired my style of art, along with other inspirations. However, now knowing what has been heard of, I think that I learned a few things over this time.

The first thing I learned is that even though the head of a cartoon is the first thing that pops up when you think of the people working on said cartoon, doesn't mean that that's the only thing that makes that show good or unique. Ren and Stimpy had a lot of talent behind it, such as the likes of Bob Camp, Jim Smith, Chris Reccardi, Lynne Naylor, Vincent Waller, along with other talented artists. They had as much, if not more involvement with Ren and Stimpy than John.

The second thing is that due to the many people that are involved in this work, I still think The Ren and Stimpy Show is a good show. The other artists and writers of the show had done as much good as John, maybe even better. Say what you will about Games Animation's seasons of Ren and Stimpy, but they at least tried to make it like what the show was. I feel like there was a burnout between the stress John gave to his former workers and working on Ren and Stimpy that caused the later episodes to deter in quality for some people. Even then, there were many good hits in the ballpark (like the hilarious character known as Wilbur Cobb).

The third thing is that sometimes, you need to separate the art from the artist. Although John had created Ren and Stimpy, they are now owned by Viacom. However, don't expect them to come back anytime soon. The Adult Party Cartoon's effects on Ren and Stimpy as a franchise made it so bad that no one wants them anymore. The sexual assaults by John K. didn't help things either.

The final thing is John K. is a liar, a manipulator, and abuser. Along with that, his drawings had devolved into chicken scratch. If you had any thoughts on commissioning him, please take these facts in mind about who John is.

And that is all I have to say about this issue. I will not ever idolize John K. ever again.

He is not my idol.

The Big John K. Rant (Part 5) - Special Delivery For "Package Boy" or How John Kricfalusi Is A Child Predator

  I will have to warn people on this blog post. This post contains a huge focus on John Kricfalusi's sexual harassment towards Robyn Byrd and Katie Rice. It contains topics that are focus on heavily that aren't for the faint of heart. Child molestation and grooming should never be something that would be tolerated.

If you had lurked around the 4chan board known as /co/ before March 2018, past aside all the crazy crap the anonymous people say, you would see rumors about John Kricfalusi being a pedophile and being a creep towards his female coworkers. These sort of rumors had spread across many animation boards of the time, and it was supported by some factors

1. The Naked Beach Frenzy Intro on the Adult Party Cartoon DVD - In this segment, we can see John make uncomfortable remarks towards Katie Rice. John also mentions that he was at a girl's 15th birthday party. Considering his... weird mannerisms and sayings, it provided worry for some folks. Katie's reaction towards these interactions was also supportive of the rumors   I am completely supportive on what Katie has said about John, considering what would happen later on and what other news comes out about John's sick twisted urges.
2. John's character known as Sody Pop - Sody Pop is one of the characters John made on this failed George Liquor show. John always draws her wearing skimpy clothing and sometimes with her boobs showing out. One infamous remark that John said about her was on the Howard Stern Show, where John stated that Sody's underage. It's supportive on one of the given pitches that John had made, where it states that Sody's fifteen years old. It provides a catalyst for unfortunate, but true implications.

All of these things would come back with full force when it was spread around by Buzzfeed that John K. had sexually harassed women in his workplace. Say what you will about that website, but I believe in this story that they sent out. Here is the link of Buzzfeed's article on this news: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/arianelange/john-kricfalusi-ren-stimpy-underage-sexual-abuse

In this article, it goes over on John's interactions between two women, Robyn Byrd and Katie Rice, which is filled with sexual harassment and disturbing subject matters. John manipulated these two girls, along with others that wish to be anonymous, into doing his bidding.

I feel sorry for Robyn and Katie, who had endured such interactions between John. For someone who hate the executives for being "evil" as he speaks of it, John is worse than those said executives through these actions.

This may be shorter than the other parts, because there is a lot of people who now know of this deviant behavior by John. I'm just here to spread it so that other people can learn what not to do or be. And also, Buzzfeed provided most of the content on what John, so go check that out.

After this, there will be a conclusion where I'll give my personal thoughts on John and why I made this rant.

The Big John K. Rant (Part 4) - John's Refusal To Evolve

Evolution (noun) - the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

Evolve (verb) ("to evolve") - to develop into something new, something pertaining to evolution

  Evolution has been around for millions upon billions of years. Animals had adapted to their surroundings, had been mostly wiped out, and came back again for quite a few times. Like animals, animation had also evolved. From the theatrical black and white to colored shorts, to limited televised cartoons, and now the modern day cartoons, animation had changed over many years. Many people reacted to this with surprise and love of the progression of new animation.

Of course, some people reject this notation of the new animation that had evolved. These purists only cling on to the past and never seem to get away from it. The nostalgia of these people had given them such a pull away from the newer world so much that they don't want to see change. These types of people describe what John Kricfalusi is, according to his views on animation.

A lot of animation enthusiasts can tell you about John's hatred of mostly anything that came out past the 1960's, besides his and his cohorts' work. They also can tell you about John's worship of the cartoons made by one particular cartoonist by the name of Bob Clampett.

You see, John is a huge fan of classic cartoons. "So what?" you may ask. To reply with that, I have to say that he is not just no ordinary fan. He is one of the worst types of fans, one that brags and boasts about his favorite stuff is the best and everything else is trash, along with the people who like said "trash".

Let's see the ways John has a purist form of hatred towards modern animation

Script Writing And Writers? In My Cartoons?! This Is An Outrage!

  One of the main things John loathes is the use of scripts in animation and writers of said animation who cannot draw. Many people know about this mindset of John if they had been around the grapevine of cartoon history. He even states it himself. One proof of this is from a blog post he made on his own blog. See it here below

There are many problems with what John had said here in this segment that I will have to state. Here are them right below, and this is directed to John:

1. You claim that script writers always steal ideas from other animators, movies, actors, along with other forms of media, but does that also apply to those who animate too? The proof is ironically, seen in one of the images John had posted on that snippet. One of characters he uses to demonstrate what he thinks goes on in script-driven cartoons is the Looney Tunes character known as Foghorn Leghorn. This character was based off of the fictional character on The Fred Allen Show known as Senator Beauregard Claghorn. Robert McKimson, the creator of Foghorn Leghorn, made the cartoon chicken as a parody of Senator Claghorn. Ergo, should he be classified as a ripoff, according to your logic? Then again, it might be okay, because Robert McKimson is not Bob Clampett, the "lord and savior" of animation; the reincarnation of Jesus Christ Almighty.
2. To how much inspiration from other sources count as a ripoff? Because I can tell you, you might've done similar things as you stated that script writers do. Besides your fighting with other artists and executives, you had obvious inspirations for your characters. You based off Ren Hoek's voice off of Peter Lorre's screaming at the end of The Maltese Falcon. You also based off Stimpy's voice and personality off of Larry Fine from The Three Stooges. And, you also based your "magnum opus", George Liquor, off of your father. Peter Lorre, Larry Fine, and your father are real people, like Danny DeVito and Robin Williams. Therefore, are you as guilty as the script writers you say they're being?
3. You separate cartoonists and scriptwriters as two specific things, but what would be the problem with that exactly? You pinpoint that the cartoonists and the script writers have a different place to meet with each other, but that's not really the case. Script writers need the cartoonists to make sure that their interpretations of what they're saying are in their fullest potential, so they need to interact with each other. If the cartoonist rejects, would the scriptwriter call up the executive in order to fire them? Do they try to settle on an agreement? Does anything ever get done when that conflict happens? You lack an explanation on how the script writers torture the cartoonists. It seems like that you just hate being told what to draw, like a petulant little child.
4. If the cartoonist endured said "horrors" that you had described, shouldn't they just quit and form a strike or a worker's union of some sort? That way, they can debate their views on how cartooning should be done. If it doesn't work for them, by your own views, they can just leave (just like what you want all the cartoonists and actors to do when you got fired on The Ren And Stimpy Show). By your own logic, they can seek work elsewhere, or maybe, make their own studio (i.e, Spumco, your own animation studio).
5. If this scenario of fights truly had happen, the executives, managers, or superintendents would've intervened and would cut the crap out and settle things through. Of course, this is just hyperbole over the fights, but this sort of solution would work over arguments. This shows that you have littler understanding on how corporations work than I do (since I don't work there, and neither had you for the longest time, only working as a freelance artist as of modern day).
6. You paint a "black and white" scenario where cartoonists are always heroes and that scriptwriters are all the evil supervilliains, when that scenario is not true. Everything is morally grey, as some cartoonists are jerks and some are kind, same with script writers. You're just painting a scapegoat on script writers as if you were putting the blame on your own shortcomings as a cartoonist as all the writers' doing. Why is it always you portray yourself as "Mr. Victim" here?
7. Why hadn't the cartoonists themselves come forward toward these issues, except for you and your sycophants? Is it that they are "brainwashed" by the corporations to do their bidding? Are they not "real cartoonists"? If that's the case, you are pulling a logical fallacy known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, a way to dismiss criticism or flaws of your argument.

In fact, on that last point, that leads me to the other way John refused to evolve.

No True Cartoon Or Cartoonist

John Kricfalusi had also pulled out the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on modern animation and cartoonists. Here is the proof in question: 

In this snippet, John defines most cartoonists as his ideal bias of them seeing the world as crap and make funny stuff. Basically, he means that most cartoonists act like him, which is not the case at all. Cartoonists come from many fields and varieties.  Some like the funny stuff John does, some like serious stuff, some like both. Some are easy going optimists, some are pessimists, some are in the middle. It kind of shows John secluding himself in only his interests and his likings.

For every Stephen Hillenburg (the creator behind SpongeBob SquarePants) and Gerald Scarfe (animator of Pink Floyd - The Wall), there is a John Kricfalusi and Andrew Dobson/Tom Preston. There are good cartoonists and bad cartoonists, but they are all a part of our opinion. The comparison sentence there at the beginning of this paragraph is my opinion. The difference between me and John is that I don't parade my opinions around as fact.

John also has this seething hatred over executives who don't cave into his demands. While you need to break a few molds in the ground, you have to remember that you have a job on the line. Maybe even others' jobs too, as you might be a creator of a cartoon someday. Meanwhile, Johnny-boy over here generalizes all executives as money grubbing fools who sap creativity out of "real cartoonists". When he has control over everything, stuff like the Adult Party Cartoon gets made, which bomb terribly.

Also, the term "fake cartoons" that John uses, that means "any cartoon that doesn't fall under John's standards of good animation", which means that John thinks his, his worshipers, and his elders' ideas are the only ones are gospel. Let's check over what he says are "fake cartoons" and "real cartoons. The link I'm using is right here. Click Me! (if that link doesn't work: https://web.archive.org/web/20180330014148/https://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-it-cartoon.html) If you hadn't, go do so. If you did and read through his blog post, come back here and read what I have to say.

Notice how John uses classic media and books to define what a "real cartoon" is. Notice how he uses stuff like Looney Tunes, Disney, etc.; stuff from the Golden Age of Animation. Notice how he uses children pics as a way for his reactions, not reactions from any children. Notice how he only decries cartoons of the modern era and the 1990's.

This is John manipulating the common viewer into believing his beliefs; making the viewer think that the children only like wacky stuff and not serious and heartwarming themes, and realistic animation.  He also calls the people who don't follow his draconian ways "inhuman monsters that hate you and your kids". Next thing you'll know, he'll call them "interdimensional shapeshifting child molesters". Welp, better let your children get some Super Male Vitality and water filters and Bone Broth to keep away those satanic reptilian vampire script writers!

Alex Jones ranted and raved about crazy stuff before John Kricfalusi did it. Gotta learn from someone somehow!

As of me delving down towards his blog, John K. sounds less like a rational person that knows a thing or two about animation and more like the Alex Jones of the cartoon community. The difference is that if you don't take him seriously, Alex Jones is way more funny than John would ever be. While Alex's sensationalist and surreal views and vocabulary are downright hilarious, John's ramblings look more pathetic and sound like an old hasbeen's screech for relevancy. By no means am I condoning what Alex Jones believes in. I'm just saying that he's unintentionally more funny than John would ever be in his lifetime.

Conclusion

So, what can I say about John's way of thinking? It's simple. He thinks that everything he does should be the only thing people should do in animation. In other words, he hates everyone that doesn't do stuff the way he does. This makes him executive material, following his weird logic. His ways of animation are based on the Golden Age, and according to him, it's the only animation thing people should really care about. To him, everything else is gum strapped on to his shoe. As his distances himself further and further from social standards, he forgets that not everyone is like him, and thus, he never learned to evolve.

And why wouldn't he? According to him, everyone else is just a moron who doesn't get what cartoons are, except for his former friends and victims.

The Big John K. Rant (Part 3) - Scams Without Labels: Six Years And Counting

No matter what John says about this short, unless he posts the finished product by some random miracle, it would never be done.

  Of course, since this is a big rant on John Kricfalusi, I just had to mention this infamous scandal. This cartoon John was peddling around as his spiritual successor to his Ren and Stimpy show. The cartoon is called Cans Without Labels, and as of February 16, 2019, it has been never released in its complete state. It has been six years since its due date of February 2013, and considering it's the same month as of now, consider this a six year anniversary of absolutely nothing.

The first mention of this cartoon, if I can recall correctly, would be at August 6th, 2009, where it was yet another one of John's pitches for his failed idea of George Liquor. The link of the mentioning can be found right here (archived link is here in case John would take down his blog): https://web.archive.org/web/20180330004315/http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/08/cans-without-labels-live-pitch-at-comic.html

The cartoon idea came from John's very own childhood, as George Liquor, as previously stated, was based off of his father. John's father was a cheapskate with food and bought crappy off-branded canned food, that indeed, mostly did not have labels. John's weird relationship with his father is shown here yet again.

It started actual production around 2010-2011, and the Kickstarter page started at July 18, 2012. It has 3,562 backers donating $136,723. John's shrug off on responsibility on his own Kickstarter project had left many backers to be pissed off, since the cartoon hadn't been released, even though he claimed that it was done.

The cartoon itself is about George Liquor having dinner with his nephews Slab and Ernie. The main appetizer is, of course, the namesake of the cartoon: cans without labels. George then opens one of the cans and it has a face in it, much to the nephews' dismay. George then forces them to eat the cans or he would beat them with his belt. What a story right there!

A video of what's been shown to be done of the cartoon was uploaded by the YouTuber known as Flying Eggplant. Here is the video in its entirety up on top of this paragraph.

As you can see, it is a very rough draft of unfinished animation of the cartoon, which deteriorates into nothing but voices drafted onto pencil and pen sketches and chicken scratch. The animation, what amount there is of it, is uncanny at best. For each frame that John animates, he had to make the characters spaz out and move their body parts as if they weren't connected to each other. While I have no problem with this at all, it contributes to the downfall of John, as he basically redoes the same frame over and over again based on the slightest mistake he sees.

As where the money went, many people, including me, think that the most likely scenario would be that John blew it all on his selfish vices, and not for the cartoon that he was making. It's the most likely because even now, the cartoon's still not finished. The previous mentioned claim by John that the cartoon was finished was likely a big fat lie, as John has proven himself to be a huge liar.

One detail that had to be mentioned would be about John's advertisement for one of his other characters, that being Sody Pop. John would design her to be his way of basically making fanservice. One of the Kickstarter rewards describes you getting a "sexy Sody Pop pencil enhancer" and that she was "everyone's favorite cartoon vixen". One of the goals that would've happened if the kickstarter donation had exceeded to $180,000 would be a teaser of a cartoon starring Sody Pop. Let's just say that the character that John was advertising was fifteen years old. FIFTEEN. Don't believe me? 

Here you go. It states it on one of John's failed pitches of his George Liquor show. The reason why I'm stating this is because John has a weird fascination with teenage girls, and it transcends to reality when he harassed Robyn Byrd and Katie Rice, along with other girls who want to be anonymous. Having Sody Pop being of that age while wearing skimpy clothing doesn't make John look good when it was revealed to a broader audience on Buzzfeed that he had done hurtful things to women of Sody's age range. 

If you wanna have a laugh, go check out the annotated version of it by Annoverse, which has the same video up above, but adds MST3K-styled text boxes around it that make fun of John and his shortcomings and morbidness. The video can be seen here:

Some topics that are referenced in the annotations would be referenced in detail in future parts, so be on the look out for them in the near future. Let this video take you on the dark side of John's mind.

In short, Cans Without Labels was a disaster right from the beginning as John was never reliable to make cartoons on time. That's one of the reasons why Nickelodeon kicked him off on The Ren and Stimpy Show. And John wonders why he's never going to be in business ever again, ever since the sex scandals had happened.

The Big John K. Rant (Part 2) - George Liquor American And Rehashing The Same Idea Over And Over

There he is. The Danny DeVito wannabe that John Kricfalusi keeps on pitching

  Of course, there has to be mention of one certain character that John K had made. One character that time and time again had been pitched to over and over by him at many companies. That character's name is George Liquor. Yeah, that's his name.

George Liquor has been John K.'s "magnum opus" of some sort. Anytime that John tries to pitch a cartoon, he would mostly use this character (there are other stuff that he had pitched, but it will be talked about later). This might be due to George being some sort of cartoon imagining of John's own father. John has a weird relationship with his father, as in even though John's father was stated to be abusive to John, he would still basically worship him. The character of George himself is basically an extremely right-wing hardass. Think of Alex Jones of Inforwars.com fame mixed with Frank Reynolds from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.

Officially, George Liquor appeared in The Ren & Stimpy Show first, and he wasn't really well liked by the Nickelodeon executives. One reason was his name, as y'know, liquor is an alcoholic drink. Put two and two together, and you can understand why an explicit reference to that wouldn't fly by in children's media (except for anti-alcohol PSAs, but that's different). It was also that the last name sounded like "lick her", which would be oddly relevant, considering John's weird obsessions with girls.

With that said, when John was kicked off on the original Ren and Stimpy show, Nickelodeon would give George Liquor back to him, on the grounds that he wouldn't be a mass murderer or a pedophile. John would reply to the former with "How many people does he have to kill before he's a mass murderer?". Classy move there, John (I 'm being sarcastic, for those who might not pick up on that). The latter part would also be foreshadowing, as John had groomed children later on, but we'll get to that later.

So... what does John do with George Liquor since he has the rights to him? Well, the successes he had were from a music video, some webtoons, and some commercials and bumpers. Beyond that though, there were multiple failed pitches that John had done time and time again with the character and others. The reasons for these failings, in my opinion, would be because of John's issue with meeting up with deadlines due to his perfectionist attitude, the mannerisms and quirks of him that would put off people from working on his projects, and his inability to be professional (as in, not act like a politically incorrect asshole).

One problem I think is prevalent in what John has done would be that he keeps on using the same ideas over and over again for his pitches without tweaking anything about them so there would be a higher chance of getting the show pitched. That is, if his behavior wasn't already enough to deter people away from him. From the middle 1990's to now, George Liquor and his gang were stagnant on how they had behaved and what their motus operandi was. Of course, there were some modicums of success with the webtoons and such, but they weren't as huge as Ren and Stimpy, not by a long shot.

I think it would be a symptom of him blaming others for his own faults; thinking that he is always right on issues. You see it when he trash talks anybody who has a different way of cartooning that's not in his favorites (i.e. script-writing and less than hyperactive moments in cartoons).

Let's contrast the approach of John's pitches compared to Kyle Carrozza's pitches for his Mighty Magiswords show.

The first pitch was originally know as "Legendary Warriors for Hire" which had a similar premise to Magiswords, but the brother-sister duo of Prohyas (before Magiswords, he was called Prohias) and Vambre are a team of 4 characters (Prohias, Vambre, Phil, and Zange). Phil and Zange were later given different roles in Mighty Magiswords. Also, Vambre had pants, which would be quite ironic, if you know about her current reaction towards them (hatred). Finally, there wasn't any mention or anything related to Magiwsords in the pitch itself.

Vambre's character was also more of the sane woman in the Warriors for Hire pitch, while Prohias was a "ladies' man" instead of the loveable goofball we all know.

"Dungeons and Dayjobs" was after the Warriors for Hire pitch, but before the Magiswords show. This time, instead of having the show mean't for children, it was for adults. The tone of the pitch would be way different because of this change. Also, there wasn't any mention of the Magiswords still.

The reason why I'm comparing Kyle and John's style of pitching cartoons would be for two reasons. The first reason is because of a certain part of a webcomic Kyle had made back then called "Frog Raccoon Strawberry" that had a parody of John in it. Here it is:

I made this point (about the pitches, not Kyle's comic, silly) as a way to give praise toward Kyle for giving us some reasons to hate John before the scandal around him grooming children reared its ugly head (as in, people had learned more about them as time went on). This was released to Dummcomics at June 3rd, 2011, seven years until John's scandals had come on to light. 

Kyle, if you're reading this, I have to give thanks to you. You may not wanna come back to the whole John K. drama, but I think you're like the antithesis to him. You are much more kind and welcoming than him. I wish the best for you and your future.

The second reason I wanted to compare both pitches is how both Kyle and John had different ways of approaching studios. While John kept on using the same idea over and over for his George Liquor show, Kyle had changed his world from big details to small as a way for him to evolve. John never changed anything in his world. He is the definition of insanity: trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The lesson here is that times change, and that you have to change with the times in order to catch up with the world. If not, you would end up like John K., who got stuck in his little own world and never got out.

P.S. If this seems to be me digging up old stuff on him, I'll say this: this rant is mean't to be an archival on the bad things John has done over the years and to show people what not to be as a cartoonist, through my opinion. You can disagree with me all you want though. You have the freedom of doing that.