(Decided to start a new thread for this so I wouldn't be double-posting in the John K thread)
Just got back from seeing this movie at Sundance. I backed this project on Indiegogo in 2017 and was asked to find clips for certain parts of the film, including one segment showing how many other cartoons have been influenced by Ren & Stimpy (most of the stuff I contributed wasn't used).
I was greatly looking forward to this, and when the Buzzfeed article came out I became worried about what might happen to the film - so at first I was pleased to hear that it would still be released, albeit heavily reworked to include the news about John. I was dismayed to see that the prevailing attitude on this forum and elsewhere was that the film should have been canceled as soon as the news broke, and while I could understand why people felt that way, I still wanted to keep an open mind until I actually saw the film. Sadly, after watching it, I have to echo everyone else's sentiments - it's an uneven, inconsistent, inappropriately titled mess that puts way too much focus on John and has no idea how to handle the allegations against him. If it was a choice between releasing it like this and shelving it, they should have shelved it - without question. How this thing ever got accepted into Sundance is beyond me.
Let me be clear that I take no pleasure in saying any of this. I really wanted to like the film, and despite everyone's misgivings I still hoped it would be worth it after all this. But after seeing it, there's no doubt in my mind that it should've been canned as soon as the news broke, if this was the direction they were going to take. The film could potentially have been salvageable if the focus had mostly stayed on the other people who worked on the show besides John, but instead the filmmakers chose to structure 90% of the movie around him, which may have been one of the worst possible moves they could have taken after he was outed as a predator.
The first cut of the movie was over two hours in length and was completed just before the Buzzfeed story broke. It had no direct involvement from John, who only agreed to participate after the story dropped. The finished cut of the film is slightly over 100 minutes in length and focuses primarily on John, which will undoubtedly disappoint anyone hoping that the film would give the show's other artists a chance to speak. All the best anecdotes come from Bob Camp, Chris Reccardi, Richard Pursel and others as they share their own stories about working with him, but the vast majority of screen time is devoted to John telling long rambling stories about his childhood, his father, how the characters were created, how he became interested in animation in the first place, the inspiration for Ren's voice, etc.
It should probably come as no surprise that most of this ground has already been covered elsewhere, and while John's tyrannical and abusive tendencies are touched on from time to time, the film spends much of its runtime building him up as this unparalleled genius of animation, as though he were a modern-day Walt Disney. It's less a celebration of the show and its legacy (i.e. what was originally promised) than a celebration of John. Billy West and Bill Wray only have brief sequences devoted to them, while other artists (Jim Smith, Eddie Fitzgerald, Scott Wills) are barely in the film at all. Vanessa Coffey is featured most prominently after John, talking about how she selected Ren & Stimpy from John's "Your Gang" pitch to be the main characters, as well as sharing her thoughts on the show's tarnished legacy as a result of John's crimes.
Many fans of the show were also contacted and interviewed by the filmmakers, and while all of them are acknowledged in the credits, none of them actually appear in the film, with the exception of one stereotypical redneck-looking dude who shows off his massive collection of R&S merchandise, in a sequence that feels incredibly out-of-place with what the film ultimately became. Multiple celebrities were interviewed as well, including Weird Al Yankovic, but only a small handful actually made it into the film (Jack Black, Iliza Shlesinger, and Mad TV cast member Bobby Lee appear to be the only ones featured). Disappointingly, one of the discarded interviews was with Anthony Raspanti, who guest starred in the episode "A Visit to Anthony" as an eight-year-old fan of the show.
Very little of the Games run of the show is covered; the bulk of the film is devoted to the first two Spumco-produced seasons, after which it skips ahead to John's post-R&S projects and his relationship with Robyn. The tonal shift as the focus switches to John's predatory behavior is as jarring and non-seamless as you can imagine, and is even marked with a title card. There's no real transition or flow to it; the film just suddenly takes on a creepy, sinister tone all at once and without warning. The fact that the filmmakers went to the trouble of completely tearing down and restructuring the whole film, and the finished product still couldn't avoid feeling like an awkward mishmash of two entirely different films, only serves to make their lack of experience all the more painfully evident. A friend on Facebook suggested that a better approach may have been to release the first cut with a disclaimer, then do a follow-up movie focusing on John's crimes, but the producers likely did not have the time or budget to do this.
The final portion of the film is extremely uncomfortable to watch, as we cut back and forth between John and Robyn each telling their own version of what happened. Robyn's poignant statements about separating art from artist are sadly undermined by John as he creepily reminisces about his relationship with her, claiming he had her best interests at heart and urging her to give him a call once she sees the film. The filmmakers even give John the final word - the film closes with him admitting that he's not perfect, that he's "human just like everybody else," as he sketches a scene of Stimpy calling Ren a monster (from "Ren Seeks Help" of R&S Adult Party Cartoon). Vanessa Coffey was in attendance at the premiere (as was Robyn), and during the post-show Q&A she took the filmmakers to task for their decision to do this, asking them why they let John have the last word. The director more or less dodged the question by saying that the closing shot was meant to indirectly suggest that John is actually a monster, as if that excuses or makes up for the fact that they still gave him the last word anyway (never mind hanging out with him for months and making him the focus of nearly the entire movie).
This, ultimately, speaks volumes as to just how naive and unqualified they were to even consider doing a movie like this. They gave an admitted sex offender a voice in an attempt to paint as neutral a picture of him as possible and "let the audience make up their minds." The obvious problem with this approach (which should really go without saying) is that he is a sex offender. Someone like that does not deserve a platform to present their "side of the story" because of how obviously and objectively wrong their actions were, and if the filmmakers were going to take this approach, they should have either dumped the project altogether or consulted someone who knew better.
Overall, while I might recommend the film as a primer for anyone curious about the show and its history, Thad Komorowski's book "Sick Little Monkeys" is the better account by far, and anyone expecting a more in-depth look at the series would be much better off checking that out instead.
Just got back from seeing this movie at Sundance. I backed this project on Indiegogo in 2017 and was asked to find clips for certain parts of the film, including one segment showing how many other cartoons have been influenced by Ren & Stimpy (most of the stuff I contributed wasn't used).
I was greatly looking forward to this, and when the Buzzfeed article came out I became worried about what might happen to the film - so at first I was pleased to hear that it would still be released, albeit heavily reworked to include the news about John. I was dismayed to see that the prevailing attitude on this forum and elsewhere was that the film should have been canceled as soon as the news broke, and while I could understand why people felt that way, I still wanted to keep an open mind until I actually saw the film. Sadly, after watching it, I have to echo everyone else's sentiments - it's an uneven, inconsistent, inappropriately titled mess that puts way too much focus on John and has no idea how to handle the allegations against him. If it was a choice between releasing it like this and shelving it, they should have shelved it - without question. How this thing ever got accepted into Sundance is beyond me.
Let me be clear that I take no pleasure in saying any of this. I really wanted to like the film, and despite everyone's misgivings I still hoped it would be worth it after all this. But after seeing it, there's no doubt in my mind that it should've been canned as soon as the news broke, if this was the direction they were going to take. The film could potentially have been salvageable if the focus had mostly stayed on the other people who worked on the show besides John, but instead the filmmakers chose to structure 90% of the movie around him, which may have been one of the worst possible moves they could have taken after he was outed as a predator.
The first cut of the movie was over two hours in length and was completed just before the Buzzfeed story broke. It had no direct involvement from John, who only agreed to participate after the story dropped. The finished cut of the film is slightly over 100 minutes in length and focuses primarily on John, which will undoubtedly disappoint anyone hoping that the film would give the show's other artists a chance to speak. All the best anecdotes come from Bob Camp, Chris Reccardi, Richard Pursel and others as they share their own stories about working with him, but the vast majority of screen time is devoted to John telling long rambling stories about his childhood, his father, how the characters were created, how he became interested in animation in the first place, the inspiration for Ren's voice, etc.
It should probably come as no surprise that most of this ground has already been covered elsewhere, and while John's tyrannical and abusive tendencies are touched on from time to time, the film spends much of its runtime building him up as this unparalleled genius of animation, as though he were a modern-day Walt Disney. It's less a celebration of the show and its legacy (i.e. what was originally promised) than a celebration of John. Billy West and Bill Wray only have brief sequences devoted to them, while other artists (Jim Smith, Eddie Fitzgerald, Scott Wills) are barely in the film at all. Vanessa Coffey is featured most prominently after John, talking about how she selected Ren & Stimpy from John's "Your Gang" pitch to be the main characters, as well as sharing her thoughts on the show's tarnished legacy as a result of John's crimes.
Many fans of the show were also contacted and interviewed by the filmmakers, and while all of them are acknowledged in the credits, none of them actually appear in the film, with the exception of one stereotypical redneck-looking dude who shows off his massive collection of R&S merchandise, in a sequence that feels incredibly out-of-place with what the film ultimately became. Multiple celebrities were interviewed as well, including Weird Al Yankovic, but only a small handful actually made it into the film (Jack Black, Iliza Shlesinger, and Mad TV cast member Bobby Lee appear to be the only ones featured). Disappointingly, one of the discarded interviews was with Anthony Raspanti, who guest starred in the episode "A Visit to Anthony" as an eight-year-old fan of the show.
Very little of the Games run of the show is covered; the bulk of the film is devoted to the first two Spumco-produced seasons, after which it skips ahead to John's post-R&S projects and his relationship with Robyn. The tonal shift as the focus switches to John's predatory behavior is as jarring and non-seamless as you can imagine, and is even marked with a title card. There's no real transition or flow to it; the film just suddenly takes on a creepy, sinister tone all at once and without warning. The fact that the filmmakers went to the trouble of completely tearing down and restructuring the whole film, and the finished product still couldn't avoid feeling like an awkward mishmash of two entirely different films, only serves to make their lack of experience all the more painfully evident. A friend on Facebook suggested that a better approach may have been to release the first cut with a disclaimer, then do a follow-up movie focusing on John's crimes, but the producers likely did not have the time or budget to do this.
The final portion of the film is extremely uncomfortable to watch, as we cut back and forth between John and Robyn each telling their own version of what happened. Robyn's poignant statements about separating art from artist are sadly undermined by John as he creepily reminisces about his relationship with her, claiming he had her best interests at heart and urging her to give him a call once she sees the film. The filmmakers even give John the final word - the film closes with him admitting that he's not perfect, that he's "human just like everybody else," as he sketches a scene of Stimpy calling Ren a monster (from "Ren Seeks Help" of R&S Adult Party Cartoon). Vanessa Coffey was in attendance at the premiere (as was Robyn), and during the post-show Q&A she took the filmmakers to task for their decision to do this, asking them why they let John have the last word. The director more or less dodged the question by saying that the closing shot was meant to indirectly suggest that John is actually a monster, as if that excuses or makes up for the fact that they still gave him the last word anyway (never mind hanging out with him for months and making him the focus of nearly the entire movie).
This, ultimately, speaks volumes as to just how naive and unqualified they were to even consider doing a movie like this. They gave an admitted sex offender a voice in an attempt to paint as neutral a picture of him as possible and "let the audience make up their minds." The obvious problem with this approach (which should really go without saying) is that he is a sex offender. Someone like that does not deserve a platform to present their "side of the story" because of how obviously and objectively wrong their actions were, and if the filmmakers were going to take this approach, they should have either dumped the project altogether or consulted someone who knew better.
Overall, while I might recommend the film as a primer for anyone curious about the show and its history, Thad Komorowski's book "Sick Little Monkeys" is the better account by far, and anyone expecting a more in-depth look at the series would be much better off checking that out instead.