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.