#AKOM on Get Back

[mythserene]

AUDIO: The impact of Tune In on some of the most awesome Beatles podcasters in existence: the peeps from Screw It, We're Just Gonna Talk About the Beatles (followed by two happier—and opposite ones—based on watching "Get Back")

Okay, I'm going to do this. Sloppily. But if anyone is mean to these guys in any way I am going to hunt you down, because they are awesome. Absolutely wonderful. But I remembered listening to this episode where they talked about Tune In back when I was sort of obsessed with the story of the early Beatles and loved/hated Lewisohn's book, and so I went back to see if the effect of Tune In on opinions of Paul McCartney were as marked as I remembered, and yeah. Even more. I could not clip anywhere near all of them, but I took a few.

You really should listen to this podcast in general. It's joyful and lovely. And do not blame them for the impact of the book. But that is the point. People who love The Beatles are completely charmed with Tune In, and because the book is so detailed and well-written, prose-wise, and Lewisohn is so revered, no one thinks to question the slant.

three clips from their Tune In episode:

*with creator Will Hines and panelists Katie Plattner and Jennifer Wang

It's important to note that this episode aired in August of 2018—before "Get Back"—so for the hell of it, I'm going to add a clip or two of their Get Back episode after these just for the contrast. To see the difference in reading "the expert" who got his expertise from working for Paul and who Paul fired and doesn't seem to like much any more, and actually watching these people in real life. (Or as close as we're going to get.)

Clip: Paul was cold and alienating but "John felt warm and friendly” and "he was the leader."

Clip: Paul was such an "asshole" to Brian Epstein. He was "so petty." "I have so much affection for Paul, but reading this there was a bunch of times where I was like, 'What the fuck are you doing, Paul? Like, quit being such a jerk.'" You get a sense of Paul's "iciness." Paul's reaction to him mom dying compared to John's.

Clip: Paul wanted Stu out because he wanted John, possibly unconsciously

Now, from their Get Back episode. (An absolute joy, btw.)

Clip: Paul was "the leader," Paul was "the engine." The way John and Paul locked eyes.

Clip: Conflict resolution, Paul "being humble about a lot of stuff" "in a surprising way," how compatible John and Paul were, "so much more compatible than it's made out to be," they all "had a lot of sympathy for each other," more John and Paul locking eyes

Fwiw, a reminder that Mark Lewisohn said he saw nothing new in "Get Back" and most definitely did not see anything like what he was seeing all over the internet that everyone else saw. (And he seemed very annoyed about all us hicks seeing what wasn't there.) But for these fans with a podcast, it basically flipped their impressions of the band formed from Tune In a full one-hundred eighty degrees.

----

I am so done for today. ✌🏻💜

[anotherkindofmindpod]

I was recently (re)listening to your wonderful Mistake series on the breakup and it prompted me to revisit Mikal Gilmore's articles. I know he was planning an entire book on the breakup at one point - do we know if that's still happening? He had some refreshing takes (along with some garbage ones) that I would be interested in seeing fully fleshed out. More generally, I keep wondering if Get Back is going to prompt a more critical reevaluation of the breakup period among the Beatle biographer crowd, but I don't know that I've seen any real evidence of that happening so far. Another reason I so enjoy the thoughtful discussion on AKOM!

Thank you so much for your kind words! :) So pleased to hear you enjoy A Mistake in Many Ways! You pose such a great question: will Get Back prompt a more nuanced/critical examination of the breakup - or even the Beatles in general? Time will tell, but I feel confident that Get Back has at least upset some once-unassailable notions. WRT Mikal Gilmore, a user in our Facebook group posted a few comments about him, which we'll share here: "I have always admired Gilmore who I follow and with whom I have interacted on Facebook. I don’t always agree with him but unlike the others, he is a gent, and always willing to learn and change like all great journalists. I am certain that watching Get Back, changed his opinions on some matters. But due to health issues he doesn’t write for the Stone often. He’s currently working on a much more comprehensive piece on the band, much longer, and where it will end up seeing the light of day, who knows? What I like about Mikal is he writes from a place of love. As he gets older (and has had to face demons and his own mortality) his writing becomes more beautiful." Hope that helps! Thanks for listening and writing in!

[m1ssunderstanding]

Understanding Lennon McCartney Rewatch Part 1.5

Coke Paul is just so pretty

What is the switching glasses supposed to mean in the penny lane video? Any thoughts?

In this interview, Paul seconds John's “go on forever” comment from a few months ago. They really did so well when they were living together, didn't they?

Okay, let's look at the difference in Paul's trips. His first ever trip with Tara Browne and he's just concerned that his sleeves are dirty and just mildly looking through a book of pictures. VS with John? The “I know.” “I know.” The “emperor of the universe” thing? Raving about it to everyone who would listen? Having to leave multiple times because it was scary how tightly they were bonding?

Their songwriting partnership is beyond insane. It's superhuman, it really is. Their abilities, their connection. And Cyn and Terry just reading. Just completely nonplussed. This was very every-day, monotonous stuff for them. Unfathomable. 

That song will always get me, though. “what do I do when my love is away?” “Obviously move my best friend in to take her place and then write a timeless classic with him about how it.”

Astrid: At first I did wonder if the really cared about people's feelings and people's friendship. Maybe this doc's whole thesis is “John and Paul's love for each other was so big they didn't have room for any kind feeling toward anyone else.”

The Pepper photoshoot is insane to me. Like more insane than the David Bailey one. Change my mind. You can't.

John tells an interviewer, "Only now am I beginning to realize many of the things I should have known years ago. I'm getting to understand my own feelings." Were follow-up questions just not invented yet??!! What things have you just learned, John? What feelings?

Never forget Linda took these. She must've been somewhat aware of how annoying this man was going to be about John from the start. And she still went after him. That's how good his . . . Nevermind.

"a decisive moment in the history of Western civilization" Well done, babies. 

I love smug Paul in general, and I especially love when he's smug about John. That “me and the badass bitch I pulled by being autistic” look. But literally. 

Gosh the Greece trip looks so beautiful. Idyllic. Paradisiacal. All of the beautiful people are just so blissful and in love. Sigh. (Every time I tried to take a screenshot of it it was too awful. Peter Jackson should clean it up.)

What are everyone's thoughts about the cause of Brian's death? I really liked what Vivek Tiwary said on AKOM. He knew he was taking a dangerous amount of drugs and he was depressed. But he wouldn't have just left so suddenly without leaving a will or setting things in order for the Beatles business. Anyway, no matter the cause, his death is the beginning of the end for the Beatles.  

All those quotes and pictures about the “intensity” between Paul and Brian are fascinating. “Obviously adored” “overcompensate” “little worries” What does it all mean? Was Brian in love with Paul in the end like he had been in love with John in the beginning? Or did he just feel bad because he knew it was unfair to Paul how in love he was with John? 

Wait, Brian was hospitalized for s*icide attempts in 66? Really? Confirmed? I knew he was in the hospital, but didn't know it was due to s*icide. 

Paul's hand at the small of John's back here, helping him onto the bus. It's so tender, so customary. They took such good care of each other.

Interviewer talking about MMT: If I can't see it in color, I'm going to send it back. ... :/

They're directing something and as Paul starts to walk away, so does John. But not because he wants to. He's looking around almost frantically. He has no choice in the matter. Only one person gets to control their legs at a time, and right now it's Paul's turn. 

Look how fucking ecstatic he is. I guarantee John isn't saying anything that monumental but look at those eyes. He's done for. Gone.

Interviewer: just get a tape recorder and you and Paul and the others just start gabbing. John: well, we've got a lot of that lying around the house, actually. Me: First of all “the house?” “the house?” Just casual. Like “our house” Like it's just common knowledge that they've been married and living together since they were fifteen. Second of all, give us the tapes already!! Who has them? Paul? 

All of these quotes from the Hunter Davies biography are just so normal. They're all so normal. It's fine. I'm fine. And here's my tin hat coming on again (and yeah I believe John loved George and Ringo immensely) but I think sometimes in these quotes, when John and Cyn are saying "the Beatles" they kind of mean "Paul . . . And George and Ringo". John himself actually says as much in the seventies, that when he says "the Beatles" he might just mean Paul, or just him and Paul. And there are countless times when Paul or John will start out saying "the others" and end up using just one name in a sentence. Idk this doc makes me such a truther I swear I'm not always this crazy.

And John's self soothing, reassuring refrain playing over all of it, “nothing's gonna change my world.” Right after Paul and Jane get engaged? Someone stab me in the heart, it would hurt less. And this is just the anticipation of the next part. Can I even handle part two?

Have some happy screenshots to bolster us.

[scarlettaagni]

I'm assuming you reblogged the 'send me a character' thing with intent, so I will ask about. Cyclonus! please : 3

ye ye! I guess I'll refer to G1 (cartoon) Cyclonus by large

favorite thing about them: the most nuanced bitch this side of the cartoon! Decepticons constantly pull themselves down by only looking out for themselves and being conniving little shits to each other instead of only their enemies (and that's the point) but here you have a complete inversion, a Decepticon (second-in-command, no less) who is LOYAL. not only loyal, but selfless, by their standards?? nothing matters to Cyclonus beyond Galvatron, the Decepticon cause, and combat. he should be a force of nature but is rendered inert by an incapable leader because he just wants to follow. He's a warrior first and foremost but he gets to basically be in charge and isn't dumb muscle, e.g. he knows psychology (or at least how to work a crowd). Cyclonus is one year old and yet feels like he personally met Roman gladiators or something, he's great. A character of visible, textual multitudes in the G1 cartoon, which was notoriously allergic to nuance

least favorite thing about them: bro, the character assassination, like in Headmasters anime or the comics. I know by and large the Decepticons are dumb as hell, but I get like personally offended when chars are just dumbed the hell down for the sake of a joke or to facilitate the plot. If you have to do that, just pick more-fitting character or come up with a justification, fr. you'd think watching G1 five times in a row would inoculate me to this, but no. (for the record, his weird amplified cowardice I'm counting as stupidity) This doesn't apply to like, gag manga, that's the whole point of them

least favorite thing about them pt 2: that last answer felt like cheating so I guess while I like both demon and final designs, I hate how held back his final design is! I joke about the Unicronian legs being fine af, but he had curvier legs and they took them away. His neck is blank and featureless, so is his face. He looks fine this way, but there were so many interesting details they could have kept even when making him look more uniform with previous character designs. I guess I can thank AKOM for once, for letting us see his old design in motion lol

favorite (serious) line: damn. if I gotta pick? I guess for characterization: [out of breath] "It has been too long since I had an opponent that was worthy of my FULL attention..." or alternatively, "Galvatron...!" said like Roger C. Carmel is crying in the sound booth purely just for the line delivery

favorite (silly) line: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere..." [casually waltzes past a guy Scourge just roundhoused through a screen]

brOTP: I used to joke that Cyclonus and Scourge are at most drinking buddies to me, and I learned that's literally how they met in IDW

OTP: G1? CycMags. The rituals are intricate. It's about the symmetry. Two second-in-commands, more competent than their not-up-to-the-task leaders, the Soldier and the Warrior. They pointedly unname each other. They get petty when they're in the same space together. Cyclonus saved Ultra Magnus' life so that he could end it himself. He's sure he'll win but is perfectly open to Magnus ending him. Cyclonus views him as an equal, and despite the attempts on each other's lives, that is what makes it healthier than...

NOTP: Cyclonus/Galvatron. he's down so bad but it's obviously one-sided. he can do MUCH better, he just doesn't want to. Cyclonus won't consider any other options...... unless

random headcanon: he's prone to parroting. if someone uses a particular word or phrase, he'll use it in a sentence soon after, and phrased exactly the same way too. then it just becomes part of Cyclonus' vocabulary forever. which is how you get a guy who uses words like "vanquish" and "insolent" also saying things like "wimps" and "losers"

unpopular opinion: I'm so not with the silly ear interpretation of his horns. It's cute, and I'll make some jokey references to it, or have characters refer to them as such (derisively) but I'm insistent that they're horns. He's based off a demon, the Unicronians are clearly made in Unicron's image, they're horns. I'm a bigger fan of the wings swiveling up and down

song i associate with them: this is more of a song for all the Unicronians as a group, but I just like this one

favorite picture of them: there's some silly ones I already shared but I might as well pick one he looks really good in

in short: I like the him a normal, healthy amount

[doorhine]

"Since the fighting began in April between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, more than 450,000 people have crossed the border into Egypt, according to official figures.

Their priority, many told AFP, is finding anywhere safe to lay their heads, even if only on a cold tile floor.

But as the months stretch on, employment, proper housing and help have become nearly impossible to find, with Egypt's two-year economic crisis rapidly worsening.

Soaring inflation -- which registered a record high of 39.7 percent last year -- hit livelihoods just as war-weary Sudanese began arriving.

Many turned up with just the clothes on their backs. They ended up staying in small apartments with two or three families at a time, many of them with only one breadwinner between them earning less than minimum wage.

Dan Mhik Akom, a 34-year-old who cleans houses part-time, tried to convince a friend things would get better.

But after months watching his family "unable to even get to the kitchen to feed themselves" because of overcrowding, "he made up his mind and returned to Sudan," he told AFP."

[gamerbearmira]

I had a random dream, where the Madrigal Family chased Mirabel into the house when the Casita collapsed, but Alma didn't as she stayed with the villagers, and the family didn't make it out, but they came back as zombies, and the villagers yelled that the candle had cursed them, and they were a danger so they were banished, they turned to Alma for help but she turned away and agreed with the banishment.

I wrote the idea down and turned it into a story, but I xjust wanted to tell you about it, since I've been gone for so long

NO...NO YOU'RE ONTO SUMN...

Also. Literally have an au similar to this. I was saving it for October, but basically it was like this, but it was just some disease and Antonio was the only Madrigal that was immune. Reason, not sure, I didn't get far.

BUT THIS IS SO RAD❗❓ But you know what's NOT rad? Alma turning away. Dawg, she didn't really think this through. Like they literally have to cope with the fact that they'reundead, they lost their home, and the magic. Now they're losing the one person who pretty much guided them through it all. GET SOME COMMON SENSE ALMA❗❗ (i still love her though, she's just. dense.)

AND WHY IMMEDIATELY ASAUME THE CANDLE CURSED THEM. Like. What if this is just a twisted version of a second chance? But given the circumstances, I can see why they came to that conclusion. Although their solution to said problem is. Absolutely horrendous. Like what do they look like trying to attack y'all.

How much you wanna bet the Madrigals tried fethelo but. Weren't away or even ran off cause the others though they was tryna attack. AND ALMA COULD AT LEAST TRY AND DEFEND THEM...then again, I guess, technically, Alma lost her whole family. Like she don't have NOBODY. Pedro, not her fault, that was outta her control, and he didn't come back. But the others??? They are RIGHT there, non hostile, and wanting help and support. You pushing them away and leaving yourself virtually akome if kinda your own fault bro 😭

Yo if you ever have any more ideas for this au. Please tell me. I will gladly write or draw for it. Like really.

Me omw to obsess over a new au

This video is so funny to me idk why

[urbaneturtle]

DCAU Rewatch: Batman the Animated Series 16: The Cat and the Claw, Part 2

As Batman works to take down Red Claw, Catwoman’s pursuit to save an environmental preserve brings these opposing forces into an uneasy alliance.

Credits

Story by S.C. Derek & L. Bright

Teleplay by J. Dennis & R. Mueller

Directed by D. Sebast

Supervising Composer Shirley Walker

Music Composed by Harvey Cohen

Animation Services by Akom Production Co.

Layout Services by NOA Animation

One thing I tend to overlook on this show is its directing, the way the camera moves and shots are staged. Even in some sloppier episodes, we can get some stunning imagery. The opening of this episode, where the camera pans down from the moon and gothic skyline down through the trees and to the nervous gangster walking through the park, is gorgeous. Some old-school animation tools to create the illusion of depth there. And of course, the backgrounds always look great.

The opening scene where Batman is pressing the gangster is solid stuff. Like I said last week, I wish this episode focused more on the Gotham underworld and its connection to the crooked corporations as opposed to the silly ecoterrorist stuff. Where the last episode was a lot of fun characterization and playful banter between Batman and Catwoman, this one focuses a lot more on straight-up action and Red Claw’s plan to release a germ weapon. And it is all the worse for it.

There’s a nice subtle parallel between Batman and Catwoman midway through, where Selina and Bruce each go back home, chat with their assistants, and suit up for their nightly prowl. It’s done in a way that doesn’t feel intentional because it is so natural to each character, but the structure of the two scenes is so similar it’s undeniable. It’s smart storytelling that furthers the plot but tells us about each of the two characters and their similarities—despite being on opposite ends of the law.

Nothing about Red Claw is compelling or sensible at all, but it’s made just a bit more tolerable because the two-parter is truly about the relationship between Batman and Catwoman.

Read the full analysis and commentary, including production details, on one of the first episodes of Batman the Animated series ever aired on the Patreon.

[mclennonlgbt]

Evolution

Me 3 years ago: Some people believe in McLennon but I don't think it's probable.

Me after watching ULM and listening to AKOM: I think they were repressing their romantic feelings to each other. Me after watching Get back and being 5 months on Tumblr: Ok, they definitely fucked.

[kornwarner]

My Most Favorite Animaniacs Episodes (also including songs) by Animation Studio

Original series (1993 - 1998)

TMS: Hello Nice Warners, Yakko’s World, Ups and Downs, Potty Emergency, The Brave Little Trailer, Roll Over Beethoven, Temporary Insanity, Noel, The Great Wakkorotti: The Master and His Music, Drive-Insane, Little Drummer Warners, LA LA Law, The Monkey Song, Hooked on a Ceiling, Pavlov’s Mice, the Wheel of Morality segments, The Senses Song, Piano Rag, Turkey Jerky, The Three Muska-Warners, No Place Like Homeless, The Flame, Clown and Out; the Tower Escapes, Chases, and Returns segments, A Christmas Plotz, Fair Game, Newsreel of the Stars, I’m Cute, Babblin’ Bijou, The Great Wakkorotti: The Summer Concert, Taming of the Screwy, Garage Sale of the Century, H.M.S. Yakko, Cutie and the Beast, the Mime Time segments, Cookies for Einstein, The Warners’ 65th Anniversary Special; Hot, Bothered, and Bedeviled

Startoons: Wakko’s America, Chairman of the Bored, Ragamuffins, Bully for Skippy, Dot - the Macadamia Nut, Wally Llama, Meet Minerva, Magic Time, Cartoons in Wakko’s Body, Slappy Goes Walnuts, There’s Only One of You, It, Plane Pals, …And Justice for Slappy, Critical Condition, Guardin’ the Garden, Windsor Hassle, Be Careful What You Eat, What Are We?, The Big Candy Store, Testimonials, the Randy Beaman segments, Meet John Brain, Meatballs or Consequences, Bumbie’s Mom, Karaoke-Dokie

Wang: Space-Probed, Go Fish, Soda Jerk, The Return of the Great Wakkorotti, Win Big, A Hard Day’s Warners, Battle for the Planet, Three Tenors and You’re Out, Mobster Mash, Dot’s Quiet Time, Hiccup, Gold Rush, The Sound of Warners, Yes, Always; With Three You Get Eggroll, Lookit the Fuzzy Heads, Super Strong Warners, The Party, Message in a Bottle, Take My Siblings Please, King Yakko, From Burbank With Love, the Good Idea, Bad Idea segments; Night of the Living Buttons, Fake, I’m Mad, Bones in the Body; No Pain, No Painting

Freelance: Chalkboard Bungle, Nighty-Night Toon, Moby or Not Moby, Survey Ladies, Of Nice and Men, Les Boutons et le Ballon, When Rita Met Runt, The Cat and the Fiddle, Katie Ka-Boom: The Blemish, General Boo-Regard, The Mindy 500, Animator’s Alley, Katie Ka-Boom: The Broken Date, Up a Tree, the Dot’s Poetry Corner segments

AKOM: Hurray for Slappy, Bingo, Raging Bird, Astro-Buttons, Multiplication, Noah’s Lark, This Pun For Hire, Dough Dough Boys, I Got Yer Can, Hello Nurse, Goodfeathers: The Beginning, Opportunity Knox, Boot Camping, White Gloves, The Girl with the Googily Goop, Mesozoic Mindy, Star Truck, Moon Over Minerva, Anchors A-Warners, Bad Mood Bobby, Back in Style, Dot’s Entertainment, No Time for Love, Jokahontas, Ten Short Films About Wakko Warner, You Risk Your Life, A Very Very Very Very Special Show, We’re No Pigeons, Kiki’s Kitten, Four Score and Seven Migraines Ago

Koko: Boo Wonder, The Carpool, Birds on a Wire, Cute First (Ask Questions Later), Here Comes Attila, The Sunshine Squirrels

Revival series (2020 - present)

Titmouse: WhoDonut, Math-Terpiece Theater: Apples, The Cutening, Hindenburg Cola, Manny Manspreader, Rome Sweet Rome, No Brainer, Bun Control, Mousechurian Candidate, Warner She Wrote, Teeniacs, Please Submit, Yakko’s Big Idea, Wakkiver Twist Parts One and Two, Talladega Mice: The Ballad of Pinky Brainy, Rug of War, How To: Brain Takes Over the World, Rejected Animaniacs Characters, Warner’s Ark, Equal Time, The Warners Are Present

Snipple: Gold Meddlers, Gift Rapper, Jurassic Lark, Fear and Laughter in Burbank, Good Warner Hunting, Suspended Animation: Part 1 and 2, Of Mice and Memes, Warners Unbound, Ex Mousina, Ralph Cam, Close Encounters of the Worst Kind

Digital eMation: Yakko Amakko, All About the Benjamin, Slappy’s Return, The Warner’s Vault, Mouse Madness, The Pinktator, My Super Sour 16, The Flawed Couple

Saerom: The Apology, WARnerGAMES: Parts 1 and 2, Christopher Columbusted, Wakko’s Short Shorts: Now Loading, Know Your Scroll, Santamaniacs, The Longest Word, The Hamburg Tickler

[dalt20]

Tooning in 18 Greg Bailey part 6 of 10

DL:So, on Arthur did AKOM do anything off model? Because the studio had a reputation for being off model or lacking in their animation.

GB:I can't remember any series where someone wasn't complaining about a character being off-model from time to time to time. I'm not even sure what that means anymore. In the end, I preferred that something might be off-model a little instead of looking like a cutout of the same model sheet in every frame. At least that gives some character and exaggeration. Generally, I felt Akom was fairly on model though. Though in the 15 years they did the show I'm sure there are lots of off-model freeze frames out on the web. Mostly Akom was great because they moved the character and it wasn't all traceback stuff all the time. When things switched to digital 2D like Flash or Toon Boom it became on model but it looks really dead compared to hand-drawn animation. You are literally looking at the same model sheet position on every frame so it definitely creates significant deadness in the animation compared to hand-drawn where the character seems to almost breathe in comparison.

DL:Ah, ok. So AKOM brung their A game I guess.

GB:I really appreciated the work we got in those early seasons from Akom. Nelson had some respect for the show and he made sure the studio did a good job on the show. We weren't exactly the highest-paying studio that was sending work there but Nelson and also Frank Shinn would put more into the shows that had some integrity to them. If the series was just some generic series they might not have been so attentive. We did a really complete and tight pre production work to send over to Korea so I think they saw that and realized we meant to do a better show than the rest of stuff out there.

DL:So, About the CiNAR scandal, did the feds storm in like The Wolf of Wall Street? With everyone destroying documents and everyone being rounded up?

GB:It's more slo-mo than that, but I guess it wouldn't have made a very exciting movie for things to unravel as slowly as it did. It was so slow that basically, the media was doing all the prosecuting faster than the police. It was more of a legal assault like from the different agencies like Telefilm that were looking to get their funding money back or the archives getting a refund for one reason or another. But yes the RCMP did interview people like writers and regular staff to see if the names matched the documents they had about who did what. I don't remember a lot of destroying documents but I was on the wrong floor to see that, and there wasn't a round-up of the usual suspects where they marched a bunch of people out to a paddy wagon. I don't think anyone got taken out in handcuffs because I would have heard the rumours of that. It was strange to see the media assault and what the public was accusing them of because it wasn't what was happening or what the issue was. There was a very strange perception of it in the public. Even now everyone just says the Cinar scandal but they don't know what it was all about.

DL:So, Did you work on any other projects other than Arthur in the early 2000s post scandal, like Creepschool, Potatoes and Dragons, Treasure, The Baskervilles? Before Michael Hirsh came to CiNAR?

GB:did because I was the supervising director. I supervised the other directors. I didn't have much to do on Creepschool, or Baskervilles. Potatoes and Dragons was all done in France before it came in and it was more of an acquisition for us. I had a great model sheet with like 100 cute characters on it. I did at one point try to re-edit all those shows into a different show so they made more sense and weren't so slow. It looked very cute but it wasn't easy to sell the show. Even on Treasure, I was only brought in occasionally to look at how the show was going or meet with the terrific clients from the UK who created the series. Francois Perrault directed the show. I did start up Postcards From Buster at that time before handing off the series to Nick Vallinakis after a few episodes. During that time I was working on the development of all new series and so I designed the style or look of the show and animation style. We developed a lot of shows. The one that stands out the most was developing Mona the Vampire which Graham Fault did the initial design work on while we were in development. I think Graham did that just before creating the Untalkative Bunny in Ottawa. That was the period of Animal Crackers development and probably even Caillou. A lot of shows that I worked on in development actually made it into a series during that period. A lot of others were involved in it but hopefully, I made some meaningful contribution to it. I am probably mixing up my years there but usually, I was developing a show a few years before it hit the small screen and it was also a really insane time in the studio. After the scandal hit in fact there was not really any more development. We were still finishing off the shows that were developed earlier. Postcards from Buster was

the only series that got developed and greenlit after the scandal and before Michael Hirsch. Postcards was the one series that began under Stuart Snyder (or any of the other interim CEO's) thus fulfilling one of the major terms of Stuart's contract that allowed him to receive his bonus of tens of millions of dollars before he stepped aside.

DL:So, What's your thoughts on the studio who co-produced Animal Crackers, Alphaim? They replaced France Animation as the main co-producers in 1998.

GB:I didn't have much interaction with them. I was founded Christian Davin. I met Christian a few times and he seemed like a nice guy. Gaumont bought them out after that time. The thing that makes it hard for me to answer is that in these co-productions with France there were 2 types of shows. One that the majority partner was in Canada and the other series that the majority partner was in France. So Animal Crackers was a show that we had the lead and we did most of the work. And something like Potatoes and Dragons had the majority in France. So on the ones with majority in France we often only did the post production or maybe some of the production-like layouts. If it was our majority we did most of the work in Canada. It seemed to get more and more like that over time. So I think it is really more of a financing issue or question that you would ask to an executive producer rather than looking for a creative perspective. It wasn't on my radar very much once I knew what the work split was.

PS. Christian Davin was involved with the Robinson Sucro copyright infringement.

DL:Ah, so Thoughts on Wang Film Productions, They animated on season one on the Little Lulu Show.

GB:You mean Cuckoos Nest owned by James Wang. They did a nice job on the animation on season one. We started putting a lot of work into Cuckoo's nest at one point. Like City Mouse Country Mouse was also there. That was the really crazy period at Cinar when we just had so many series going through that studio and the place was growing like crazy. Lulu was a hard show for animation because of that super thick line was all done in traditional animation. But the look of the show was great, especially the first few shows. One thing that is not well known is that initially that show was going to be 5 specials on HBO. Tracy Ullman was doing the voice of Lulu. It was the only time I went to the pitch session that we did in NY at HBO. I only directed those first 5 episodes then supervised the director Louis Piche when the show went into a full series. To be more on topic, I had visited Cuckoo's Nest back in 1986 or so when I was at DIC Tokyo. The Japanese studio was going to visit the studio in Taiwan and they very nicely brought along the foreign staff as well.When they did City Mouse Country Mouse it wasn't so beautiful but I remember they were contracted by Cinar to churn out one episode per week through the animation department. It was usually one episode every 2 weeks at that time. But I don't think the show was well funded and we just needed to make a lot of shows quickly probably to impress the shareholders. So it was an ugly show but I can't blame Cuckoos Nest for that.Wang Productions also did the Richard Scarry series after episode 26. It was far less good than what we had been getting from Hanho on the first 26 shows.

DL:So, The Arthur episode, The Contest. How did you animated the episode in the Three styles of the segments parodying South Park, Beavis and Butthead, Dexter's Laboratory and Hulk Hogan?

GB:And Little Lulu and Richard Scarry but that was more of an in-joke. It's interesting how that episode came together. I think it was one of the best shows overall. The weirdest one at least.The South Park section was actually done under an old Oxberry film camera and shot on film. Peter Huggan who was the layout supervisor at the time made all the models out of felt. He was kind of doing the felt characters in his spare time while checking layouts. Then we rented the one last Oxberry in Montreal and we shot the sequence under the camera. It was just the way we made the films when I was a student at Sheridan College.Beavis and Butthead was just a different drawing style so it took a lot of new design . I really liked how the AC /DC logo on Beavis' shirt made a good change into AB/CD on the Arthurized version. Dexter’s lab again was just a lot of new design. We could not reuse anything from the regular series and that one had a thick line. Also the color design was new and we had lots of references from the real show.The Hulk Hogan was just styled on the many 1980's series I worked on at DIC. In fact I worked a few shows of Hulk Hogan when I first went to Tokyo for DIC.We also did a spoof of Richard Scarry and we had Lowly Huckle were bats hanging upside down. I even got Sonia Ball to do the voice of the bat in the voice she used to do Huckle. There was a Lulu parody there as well using that thick line. I used to worry about getting fired at Cinar for using R. Scarry and Lulu styles in that Arthur show. But I was just banking on that the producers never really watch the shows they are producing. I lost a lot of sleep over that idea but never heard anything from the producers at Cinar. But in general, when we would parody a different style, like we did on that Ulysses episode, it took a lot of new design and being extra careful with the storyboard, and most of all, it was traditional animation so there was no problem with changing style because we didn't have to do rigging in order to animate. The ideas for what to parody just came from suggestions I could make to Joe Fallon and Ken Scarborough about which styles we could do to give us a different look for each sequence. I loved doing all those special style things in various Arthur shows. It was something really nice about the series that we could do parodies. Usually Canadian animation companies do not do parodies in their shows. But because the scripts were produced by WGBH we would do it once their lawyers would sign off. We also based one segment on Dr Katz Psychiatrist but I don't think our squiggle vision animation was very recognizable. That was a cool episode. When Peter was making all the South Park figures no one knew what he was doing and his crew thought he was making dolls on company time like he was losing his marbles.

DL:That's so Funny! 😄

GB:yeah.

DL:So, at Cookie Jar did you work on Gerald McBoingBoing, Johnny Test, Kung Fu Dino Posse, Busytown Mysteries, World of Quest, Will and Dewitt, etc?

GB:No I didn't. Actually I helped out for a very short time on Busytown Mysteries but the other shows I had nothing to do with. That was after they closed down the Montreal studio and opened up in Toronto. I didn't move.

DL:So, I couldn't find anything on the move to Toronto when Michael bought CiNAR can you tell me what time period that was?

GB:It went in stages. In 2005 Michael and Toper and the bank bought Cinar. Renamed it Cookie Jar of all things after Huck Scarry suggested the name. They started closing up the Montreal studio that year by consolidating the 3 floors of office space onto one floor. I developed a few shows then like Bronco Teddy and that Santa Clause special. Then just a small animation crew and 2 producers moved to a new but small building in downtown Montreal . I think it was an old Canada Cement company building from the sign embossed over the front door. It had a lot of marble and brass on the main floor and an ancient elevator. Anyway we were there for a year before they shut down entirely in Montreal, and they opened up a Toronto office in that time. We did Arthur out of that new office in downtown Montreal. So by 2006 or early 2007 they were set up in Toronto on King Street. I remained on the Cookie payroll but no one else from Cinar remained after 2007. In fact I worked at Cinar/Cookie Jar full time from 1991 to 2011. I was the longest running employee of that company.

DL:Wow! So, you were demoted to the Arthur guy at that point?

GB:Yeah pretty much. They would try to keep me busy with stuff during the off-season. I developed a few shows but nothing really stuck and I would get busy again with Arthur so they would take it away from me and give it to another director. Like I was starting on a remake of Caillou and then that happened. Someone else took over the series. Or I helped out a director on Busytown for a few months. I even tried getting the director position on a series with Disney near the end of my time there but I purposely blew my application so I could go elsewhere to do Arthur. The Disney show was very preschool and the producers at Disney were in disarray. It looked like it would be really unpleasant. But yeah I guess all I really did of any significance was Arthur. We did Arthur out of Oasis Animation company in Montreal. They hired some of my old crew from Cinar while I remained on the Cookie Jar payroll. So at one point, I did some work setting up the studio to do the Arthur series.

DL:So, how was the downfall of Cookie Jar/ the DHX media purchase went for you in 2012?

GB:I was there for the downfall like when they laid off all the animation staff and pretty much everyone else. I wasn't there when DHX actually bought them. I was there when CJ bought DIC and that terrible purchase of Strawberry Shortcake. It seemed ironic to me when they bought DIC because I was there when they fell apart 20+ years earlier.The big layoff was very sudden and shocking for the people in Toronto. I don't know why they seemed so surprised. The shows were terrible. They blew a ton of money buying DIC which was even more in debt than after DIC broke up with Charlopin. They said they bought DIC to get the Saturday morning hours that DIC owned. But Saturday morning doesn't mean anything like it did when I was a kid or when I worked at Hanna Barbera. No one gets up to watch animation on Saturday morning anymore. The Strawberry Shortcake scandal was going on at that time but I wasn't paying attention to it. You probably know more than I do. But my view was - who would want to watch anything to do with Strawberry Shortcake. It was the most ugly and trite property when it came out in the 80's and it was even more horrible in the 2000's. But that was CJ's corporate culture. From the top down the company management spewed marketing jargon when they spoke about anything including creative things like animation. They would never make a great new show because they were not trying to make a show that people would want to watch. They were basing decisions on values like branding and marketing. They never spoke of things that drive other producers that try to make something kids enjoy or benefit from in some meaningful way. I understand the sense of trying to capitalize as much as possible on everything in the world, but in a creative field like animation, it's disappointing to see people only equate a good show with good merchandising. They could be happily selling stickers or really tacky toys like Strawberry Shortcake or Elf on the Shelf. They are not patient enough to make a good show first and then sell stuff because the show is popular like SpongeBob. They only want the show made in order to sell the toy.

DL:Well Michael tried to create that workspace mentality from Nelvana. Remember when we talked about the program slate from Nelvana from 1995-1996?

GB:Yes! Nelvana was also a 3 way partnership. Clive Smith was coming from animation production in the UK before they started Nelvana. So there was more push in the direction of the art at one time at Nelvana. This time his partner Toper Taylor was a marketing person. When he speaks it's a lot of marketing jargon.I shouldn't really say that Clive did this or that at Nelvana. I was never working at that studio and I've only met him briefly. Michael has been a great businessman there is no doubt about that.

DL:Yeah, I saw that the only thing that was making money at the studio was Arthur, the Doodlebops and Johnny Test. Everything else was a co-production at the company.At Cookie Jar , that is.

GB:They made a horrible mess out of Richard Scarry and the Caillou properties that had generated a lot of money at Cinar. But the versions they made at CJ were terrible. They were so commercially exploitative looking. It's true that you don't make money just selling the show to broadcasters. At least it's not a big part of the income in TV animation. I'm not sure Arthur was making much money for them either. Eventually, they quit doing it because they either had to make a totally horrible different-looking show or lose money making it. Like there was no toy licensing or books or anything to make money on with Arthur. The Arthur series never had a really high budget compared to other big animated series like WB or Disney or Nickelodeon shows and the amount coming in for production kept getting smaller year by year.

[todayesterday]

"by that math, if yoko = paul + a lover, wouldn't then paul + may = yoko?"

honestly this series is so damn good so far @anotherkindofmindpod your minds

[mythserene]

Mark Lewisohn really wants to overturn narratives and “Get Back” accidentally gave us incredible insight into how little it takes to make him smoothly and confidently wrong

Great AKOM. Maybe too good because it left basically nothing to add on the primary topic. This show followed my own notes more than any so far—but I had not caught the John quote being about the Maharishi—chef's kiss. 👩‍🍳💋

However... it does give me a chance to riff off something they touched on that I've also been thinking about for awhile: Mark Lewisohn's big desire to overturn narratives, and how wrong he gets it when he runs into a fact check we can all see with our own eyes.

Pre-“Get Back” Mark Lewisohn previewed some of the narratives he was itching to overturn, and off the top explained that no one had really told the Get Back sessions correctly. By trying to ingest all that Nagra audio on a sort of anniversary-tribute calendar schedule—(which is insane, impossible, and hubristic beyond words)—he was prepared to make news on a few fronts. (All clips of him are from 2019.)

First of all, no one has told the "Get Back" sessions story right. Yet.

But after binging the Nagras once the expert is ready to “write it differently”

Redeeming Magic Alex

In this tweet is a hidden wink-wink-hint at the new Magic Alex storyline Lewisohn was queuing up. Although if he hadn't tipped us off in the podcast the “not so bad then” would be meaningless. As it is, we have the key.

Magic Alex has been slandered, his studio was fine, and the Nagras — especially George's good vibes — prove it.

Honestly, just imagine what we would be reading from him if “Get Back” didn't exist. This is the flimsy nonsense he builds entire storylines around. Because he prioritizes flipping narratives second only to deifying John. And like a reporter with a thesis he interviews and searches out sources to prop up that thesis. But unlike a reporter he has no checks. No imperative to give competing evidence. Answers to no one. Is wholly opaque about sources. And most certainly doesn't concern himself with adhering to even the most basic UK and US ethical guidelines for historians.

And so this is possibly the best peek we will ever get into how his process works and just how incredibly flimsy it is.

Paul didn't want to go up on the roof—he was the one who had to be persuaded—because it wasn't enough of a climax

Apparently even Anthology was trying to pull the wool over our eyes about Paul and the rooftop concert, but Lewisohn was ready to rewrite history and tell the truth about Paul not wanting to go up on the roof.

The last clip isn't of Mark Lewisohn, but references him as an expert. The final arbiter of fact. And it fits. Because at this point if Mark Lewisohn says it, no matter how ridiculous it is, it becomes cannon. And it pains me to see anyone—especially Beatles' fans—parroting nonsense and looking foolish.

Mark Lewisohn, heroin expert

It is so clear that Mark Lewisohn is going to handle John and Yoko's heroin issue by feigned expertise blended with apologia and creepy idolatry. (See Prellies in Tune In.) How he thinks he's expert enough to opine on the effects of heroin is beyond me, but that's never stopped him before. I really don't think he ever even questions himself or his superior knowledge of anything, despite zero experience or study. His expertise at extricating John from all hard truths is enough, and will make us all stupider. (Also playing now because I am inching up to pointing out something on those Nagras.)

Repeating Mark Lewisohn: the "Two Junkies" interview (where John literally had to stop to throw up) was from a heroin hangover because John and Yoko weren't messed up enough to actually be doing heroin on set

*I posted this last night and Tumblr disappeared 90% of the post then wouldn't let me post more audio because it counted the disappeared audio against me. Therefore I forced myself to repost it this morning before listening to the bonus (Womak/Mal Evans) AKOM I've been so looking forward to and may now go revel in my reward without guilt. 😌

[anotherkindofmindpod]

Hi AKOM, I read Ian Leslie's article about "Now and Then," which you re-blogged, with great interest. Like you I believe it to be a fairly "sane take." Like many readers, I was struck by one passage specifically: "As far as we know, it wasn’t a sexual relationship, but it was a passionate one: intense, tender and tempestuous." The negation isn't necessary for Mr. Leslie to make his central point, which is that the Lennon/McCartney relationship can best be understood as a love affair. So why mention it at all? Because the idea of a sexual relationship (or attraction, even) between the two men is so offensive it has to be excluded, even though no one brought it up? Or as a circumspect way to introduce the idea to the discussion, buffered by the careful addition of "not, as far as we know?" I think it's the latter; I'd wager many readers do. And my feelings on this are mixed. Because the tone of "by no means do we want to suggest the presence of base carnal desires" is one of disapproval. Had this sentence not been in there, the love affair analogy would have spoken for itself, to be filled in by the reader at will. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore the possibility that these five words, "as far as we know," are the entire point of the article, which otherwise doesn't make a big effort to specify the exact shape of the love affair analogy. Passionate, yes. Breakup, yes. Hurt feelings and coded messages, yes. The Beatles' music as carrier of suppressed emotions—yes, but which ones? "In a sense, the music of the Beatles, which brings so much joy and consolation, is the glorious fruit of male repression. We like to think we live in a more emotionally enlightened age. We have learned to talk it out. Yet sometimes I think that is itself a kind of avoidance, or a failure of nerve. We’ve awakened from the dream, and yet seem to be more confused than ever." Is he talking about the current state of talking about John and Paul? What do you think? (I hope he expands on his analogy in his book.) P.S. I love your podcast and the hard work you put into it so listeners like me can feed their heads. Thank you for that! [P.P.S. I took out a digital subscription of the NYT because of this article, and no, I did very much not read the comments, nor do I intend to do so.]

Hello @crepesuzette2023! Thanks for writing! :) To be honest, the line "as far as we know, it wasn't sexual" didn't strike me as anything other than responsibly agnostic. I think if you ask the reader to reframe an already extremely famous creative partnership as a love affair, the natural follow-up question would be: sexual or platonic? In that event, stating he has no knowledge of it being sexual while also allowing for the possibility it might have been is exactly the right tone to take, IMO. Because that's the truth; we don't know either way. Honestly, I've been a bit bewildered by some of the tumblr response to this article. As I said, I think Ian Leslie's is a thoroughly sane take. Then again, I've been publicly talking about John and Paul as a love affair (on not just my own podcast but other peoples' as well) for years now, so maybe I'm in the belly of the beast. Don't get me wrong, it's very gratifying to read this in the NY Times! I'm excited by this shift towards open discussion in the public realm, but it's hardly scandalous. Leslie has been working on his book since 2021, I think. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think his takes on Lennon-McCartney are very good and sound. I recommend his piece on Get Back if you haven't read it. TBH, I'm not sure what the highlighted passage means. If I had to guess, I'd say he's talking about the way Beatles scholarship so far has refused to publicly accept Paul and John being in love, or contemplate what that means to their art or their lives because we have historically been too scared or cowardly. And maybe the act of creating timeless art as a display of love is much more powerful than being able to say the words to someone. But I don't really know. :) Also, this is just my (Phoebe's) response. Daphne and/or Thalia may have different takes. Thank you for the kind words about AKOM!

[m1ssunderstanding]

Get Back Rewatch 55 Years On: Day Eight

So Ringo walks in first thing in the morning carrying not one, but two drinks. Either he’s being very gentlemanly to MLH (likely) or we’re getting a peek at his alcohol problem (also likely)

Ringo your boooots! Ugh, I want them so bad. And paired with the shiny red shirt and jeans? Like if Dorothy was rodeo royalty.

Paul’s defense-mechanism overdone charm coming in strong today. Playfighting with some random old man, winking at someone else as he walks by, all chipper and bouncy, boyish and cute.

“If it came to a push . . . between Yoko and the Beatles, it’s Yoko, you know . . . ‘Why do you build me up, build me up, buttercup baby, just to let me down?” Linda grabs his hand and he shuts up. Another on my list of covers with *meaning* and if this one isn’t obvious, I don’t know what is. Even Linda was embarrassed for him. But here’s the thing. He’s so sure that if he pushed John to choose between Yoko and the band, that John’d choose Yoko. And he’s probably right there. But what John wants, IMO, whether he knows it or not, is for Paul to push him to choose between Yoko and HIM. Not the band. I really do think that’s what John wants and the fact that Paul’s not doing that confirms John’s belief that Paul doesn’t love him.

“Permanently engaged?” *literally starts to vibrate with anxiety* *whistles to self-soothe*

Okay, but, if I’m remembering correctly, actually in the nagras Paul’s answer to MLH’s “Do you think if you put any pressure on him that he’d go your way a bit more?” is actually “I don’t know, you know . . . can’t be bothered.” Not. “I don’t know, you know . . . and then there were two.” As AKOM said in one of their Get Back episodes, that line is actually a joke not even from that moment. So the tears? Real. The line? No.

Ringo is Not a fan of Paul just casually planning ways to announce the breakup.

Couldn’t even get a picture of Paul jumping out of his chair to talk to John because he moves so fast. Poor baby.

I wonder how early on Linda and Paul developed the “she says what he can’t say while he’s gone” play? You know? I definitely don’t think this early, but this moment does remind me of that little strategy of theirs.

“He’s coming in.” Just now takes his coat off. Meaning he's just now decided to stay? Or he's just now remembered he's still got it on? Either way, Paul's suddenly all easy smiles, relaxed, joking. John’s coming in. What could be wrong?

I was literally so pissed when I first watched this lunchroom conversation. I won’t claim to be a nagras expert or anything, but I was very familiar with the secretly-taped conversation, and it was just so butchered and spliced. Also, even if it was just them talking, it’s still not a private conversation. They’re in a crowded public space. So it’s still coded and veiled and layered etc. MLH you should’ve bugged their coats for the meeting at George’s if you’d wanted a private convo. (obvs I don’t condone that sort of thing don’t come at me)

Paul and John invite Ringo to go see George. Ringo: I was going anyway. Of course you were. Ringo’s the glue, everyone. Lewisohn can think it’s John that everyone had their closest relationship with in the group, but actually, it’s Ringo.

Ringo and Mal’s little two-step. Adorable!

See, and Ringo being the one to suggest they rehearse. It’s not just Paul being bossy all the time, kids, and it’s not just John being a leader all the time, kids. Sometimes it’s Ringo.

“Why don’t I leave my favorite guitar here as a sign?” “Look, look, what greater faith could a man have than to leave his list?” You know, like when that mean teacher makes you give them a shoe or your phone or something when they let you borrow a pencil just to make sure you won’t steal it?

[bambi-kinos]

George excerpt from the McLennon server

@rookghosty​ has very kindly given me permission to repost our conversation regarding George Harrison and John Lennon re: their relationship during the 1970s, George’s frustration with the obnoxious Lennon-McCartney diva double act, and eventually how Paul ended up being more key to the Beatles than anyone realized (even Paul himself.) Since this is from the McLennon server the Paul bias is built in and of course we couldn’t really help but go back to the shipping well, but this was a good conversation about John and George all the same. Hope you guys enjoy.

Once again I have restructured the order of our conversation for better coherency due to Discord’s “reply” feature making it hard to follow if you’re not in the program itself.

***

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 So I've just starting listening to the AKOM podcast and I'm absolutely LOVING it!! On their part 2 of diving into How Do You Sleep? they talk about George and his relationship with the song, and therefore John and Paul in the 70s

I loved their analysis so much, the gist of it is that George kind of resented the Lennon-McCartney partnership, but not really John or Paul on their own

I've always felt bad for George in a way, because he just wanted to make some cool music and with his cool friends but had to deal with John and Paul's massive cosmic obsession with each other in between. Like imagining that as a musician myself... bro

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 yeah...it placed him in this really awful position

like he wants to make music with his friends and he loves them but you can only disappear so many times whenever john walks into the room before you start resenting the hell out of it

he just didnt have a lot of great options at that point.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 For real. Obviously I know all the bugs loved each other very much, but he just clearly was not appreciated by them as an artist as much as they appreciated each other.

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 he just couldn't take it...not when he had other musicians going "hey you're really great, y'know?"

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 By playing on Imagine tho, George kind of sided with John on the whole John vs. Paul feud, which I think was so damaging for his relationship with Paul. The narrative is usually because "bossy Paul restricts George more and John is more sympathetic", but I don't really buy that cause John could be really dismissive and cruel to him (like the scene in Get Back with his reaction to I Me Mine struck me as really shit)

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 nodnod

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 And even in the Lennon Remembers interview John slags him and his music off in a way that is,, unneeded to say the least.

George is repaid by John for siding with him by John later saying that he used to follow him around Liverpool like a puppy

Idk I'm just going off a bit 😭 I love John as much as anyone else but I love George so much too and this particular instance makes me mad to think about

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 i dont blame u at all, its really crummy

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 But I think AKOM is right is saying that the reason George relished working on that song and did so many takes of his solo (which does go really hard), is because he was probably more motivated to do it because it was a wrench in  Lennon-McCartney rather than because he hated Paul specifically so much more than John. Like "finally! They are not up each other's asses for 5 seconds!"

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 to be fair I think George knew John was just kind of....like that and he was ready to take it from him. despite his protests otherwise i also believe that George hero worshipped John until the end and wanted his approval so he didn't really want to rock that boat because he knew there was a significant danger of John burning that bridge forever especially since he was with Yoko and she brought out John's narcissistic qualities to the max. so if George wanted to stay in contact with John (and he did up until a point, I think George finally cut him off a bit once John slagged off Dylan and John reacted so weirdly to George not talking about John in his autobiography) then he couldn't really afford to hold John accountable for that stuff.

whereas with Paul its more personal but also more secure. he trusted Paul more emotionally I think though maybe he didn't like that quality about himself. The upside of having Paul as your big brother is that Paul will forgive you no matter what and George relied on that more than he really wanted to admit IMO.

the thing about the "Imagine" phase is that was when John (and George but especially John) was still in the sowing phase of the sowing/reaping tweet:

I haven't listened to AKOM so I can't comment tooo much on their take but ultimately it sounds right to me? Like George just wanted to stick it to this partnership that had taken over and kind of ruined his life for the last few years.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 So true, he wanted his approval so bad but it just sucked so much for him. There's that meeting between John and George that May Pang talked about, I'm not sure if it's in her book, where George goes completely off on him and rips his glasses off his face, and John stays quiet. But one line he says is "I did everything you asked me to!" Which is just :( heartbreaking...

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 the thing that I don't think anyone really realized -- except maybe John, and Ringo but Ringo isn't the type to point it out -- is that the Beatles thing was totally contingent on Paul. Once he was done, it was over. John relied on Paul to keep the thing together from the start. I'm not saying that it wasn't a four way relationship, it totally was, but it was always dependent on Paul holding his shit together and de facto everyone else. If Paul wasn't in the picture than the Beatles would never be a thing and we saw that in the 70s. Paul looked at the shitshow of Klein and how the other three treated him during the break up and the fact that he had to sue them to get away from them and he said "no fanks love" and he ran off with Linda and got to be happy with her and have his own successful band.

I've reblogged some posts recently about George in the 70s and he was under the impression that the Beatles were going to come back together once "things got sorted out" -- like he had been talking to people about how they would do it and he wanted them to tour again, that was as late as 1976? I think?

but the thing is that "HDYS" and everything else that happened in 1969 and 1970 just really fucking destroyed Paul and I don't think anyone really realized just how much for a very long time. So I can easily imagine George playing on the Imagine album and HDYS thinking "This is going to own Paul but he'll get over it because he always does and then we'll sort our shit out and then we'll be the Beatles again. It might take a few years but we'll get there."

but that's not what happened. Paul was hurt very deeply by all that -- and it's not that George and John and Ringo weren't justified but it really did skewer the possibility of the Beatles ever getting back together because Paul just couldn't do it again.

so its all just kind of a shitshow, where you have these egotistical people who don't understand how much they're hurting each other or how much they actually need each other to make this thing work.

and the thing is that's not George's fault, it's not his job to put up with McLennon fuckery and he did the right thing for himself, I think. but its also just really sad.

a lot of it comes down to the fact that John and Paul hurt each other, themselves, and the people around them and it lead to a lot of horrible ricochets.

if they hadn't been up each other's asses like that all the time or if they had just been more careful with themselves and the people around them then a lot of things could have turned out differently.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 Paul was completely right for being fucked up by that song, it nearly singlehandedly ruined his critical perception as an artist. He is a king for rejecting that bs

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 (Paul did so many things wrong but I still respect the fuck out of him for looking at his life's work in the Beatles and going "I can just write more songs" and then lighting the whole thing on fire. King shit, I wish I was that cold.)

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 I think you hit the nail on the head. They mention it in AKOM too, how basically everyone working on that song had been pursuing Paul / wanting something from him in some way for years (John obvsly, Yoko with her John Cage shit. Allen Klein, Phil Spector, etc.) Like Paul was the one laying the golden eggs, and everyone wanted a piece of him. When he was like "fuck off" they all just went like "lol he is so lame and he isn't a real artist, he makes muzak, we never liked him anyway." Then you get the narrative where John just tolerated Paul for... over a decade... and he felt so free without him. Yeah, no one believes that for a second.

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 I think that's the difference between George's relationship with Paul and his relationship with John.... Paul pushed back on attempts to disrespect him but he was also willing to forgive so that made it safer to badmouth him in the press if George felt like it. Whereas Yoko-era John couldn't shrug it off and he wasn't thick skinned the way he used to be, so he couldn't take the ego drubbing that George could hand out. So in the end George had to swallow a lot of disrespect from John before he found his personal limit with him.

its just kind of the perils of being John Lennon's friend I guess and then having to decide whether you're in for the ride or not. I don't know too much about that time period for George and John so I wonder if George found out that it's actually kind of hard to be John's friend if Paul isn't there to run interference or soak his outbursts.

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 John without Paul was a lot of John Lennon, all at once, and I think for many people that just ended up being too much to take.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 Real, it's just all so sad to me, this time period of their history. I love all these lads so much.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 Yeah, thinking about it ended up making me angry at John. He kind of got forgiven by people a lot of times for shit that was, not so easily forgivable. I really think HDYS is one of the most damaging and shitty things he did, and the fact that Paul still continued to have a relationship with him afterwards is a testament to his endless patience with him

At the same time, the way John talks in interviews around that time, he seems like he didn't expect there to be any consequences?? Like he was acting like he was baiting a response from Paul, he actively wanted that call-and-response game, not to end their relationship. It seems like he was really oblivious to what he was actually doing, especially being influenced by Yoko, Allen, and Phil ("who all sort of love me"... BRUH) constantly egging him on to do it. That was his circle at the time and no one told him "hey this kind of sucks maybe you should stop"

He was really gullible and easily manipulated honestly, I think Paul knew that and that's why he forgave him for that

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 precisely. and even if there was...well...he's a Beatle, he doesn't have to put up with it if he doesn't want to....

Yeah, John's problem was always that he never learned cause/effect. He was always stunned when someone thumped him in response for something he said or did.

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 I think on some level Paul knows it was John's psychic damage batting him around like a mouse being tortured by a cat. he knew there was something wrong with John, it's just that it was the 1960s/1970s, they were still only 5-10 years removed from lobotomies and straight jackets. mental health help didn't exist and no one knew that it was something that they could ask for and receive even if it did. Paul knew something was wrong and I think part of the 1967-1969 stuff was Paul panicking because he knew that John needed help but he had no idea what to do about it. So he tried to fix it the only way he knew how and that had always worked for him: more work.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: John needed a lithium prescription. But no one knew about it, that information was intentionally gate kept by medical providers and John might not have accepted it anyway.

The other thing is, Paul is alo deeply attracted to personalities like John's. Volatile people, sometimes unstable people, people with emotional baggage but try to stay strong regardless. Which flared up during his relationship with his second wife Heather Mills. Paul just likes Those Sorts of People. but Paul is also a weirdo. the impression I get is that George just didn't know what to do with John after a certain point and that's because Paul was always willing to put things behind him and George didn't know how to do that. George wasn't that much of a weirdo and was definitely heavily weighted towards the Normie end of the scale.

Like, George held on to things, thats why so many of his songs are about "getting over it" "letting go" "that was fun but now its done." Like he didn't write those songs just because, he wrote them because he couldn't let go even though he thought he should. So if john slags him off about I Me Mine then George can't go "you're a cunt :)" and kiss him like Paul can. because he was "the normal one."

And the thing is that's not a bad thing! I hope George didn't internalize guilt over that. It's not a bad thing to look at someone like John and go "get out of my life forever, right now." In fact if more people had done that than John might have stood a better chance because the fact that people pitied him so much and kept giving him more chances is partially what fucked him up.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 This is so true, I wish more people had stood up to John, I think he would have learned how to get better faster. His relationships with Paul and Yoko are so interesting to me, because whereas Paul kind of kept his John-ness in check by being his foil, Yoko enabled him in more ways because she was more similar. At least that's how I see it

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 Literally so true. I've said joking a few times that George was the most normal person in The Beatles. The McLennon fuckery is so insane. I love them to death and back, but they were insane

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 absolutely

George completely did the right thing in standing up for himself, no reason for him to take that.

RookGhosty — 06/25/2022 I think he was justified in keeping John out of his book. Without context, it seems cruel, but after knowing everything now I'm like "yeah man I would have done that too"

Leggy Maddingway — 06/25/2022 he knew it would cut John to the quick and he wanted that at the time, though I don't know enough to say why. I know he and John had a falling out because John was jealous about Bob Dylan having such a big piece of George's life post-Beatles but I don't know how the timelines match up on that.

[galactic-glamour-girl-posts]

First time watching Pinky and the Brain SEASON 2 since childhood!

Figured I might as well do this one season at a time. Not much to say in the intro this time, part 1 is here, on to season 2:

.

.

.

-From here on out I think its mainly gonna be Wang, Rough Draft and Akom animating the show. As far as I'm aware, the only episode TMS animated was the Christmas special, which is a shame. Their animation stands head and shoulders above the rest.

-The call-backs to Animaniacs seem more frequent this season-Variety Speak is referenced in "It's Only a Paper World", the Warners cameo is "Pinkasso", Mount Rushmore is re-shaped to resemble the Warners in "Plan Brain From Outer Space" (heck Zalgar himself is from "Potty Emergency"), there's a Hello Nurse (or at least woman who looks just like her) cameo in "Brain of the Future", etc.

-This show still does the thing the original Animaniacs did where they name-drop a celebrity and that'll be the punchline to the joke. In fact I think this show does it more often. I've already explained why I find this kinda annoying, but to recap, jokes like these only date the show even further and make no sense if you don't recognise the celebrity. They're the main reason I don't consider either show "timeless".

-If anyone's seen "Plan Brain from Outer Space" and wondered why the lip sync seemed off at times, apparently it was originally a scrapped pilot for a spin off called "Zalgar The Brain-Eater", which was gonna be a series where Zalgar would hunt for a new brain in every episode, but the entire episode had to be rewritten to be a more Pinky and the Brain-centric story. That's why of the dialogue in this episode is ADR and often doesn’t sync with the animation.

Although, why Zalgar of all characters was almost given a pilot for his own spin off series but characters like Slappy or even Rita and Runt were apparently never considered I'll never know (no, "One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo Clock" doesn't count, that was never meant to be a pilot, that's just a rumour)

-I like how in "The Pink Candidate", Pinky outright refuses to go along with the rest of Brain's plan once he's president because it would go against everything he's supposed to stand for as president. One of my favourite things about Pinky is his morality so that was nice to see. Of course he still saves Brain from being stoned/put in jail in the end by taking blame for Brain's schemes in the end, but that's another thing I like about him-what he adds to their dynamic. Pinky's morality often stops Brain from going too far, whilst Brain often uses his intelligence to guide Pinky and help him focus.

-"Welcome to the Jungle" was also an interesting one. It was fun to see Brain out of his element, Pinky taking charge, and Snowball coming back. It was also interesting to compare the portrayal of Brain's dynamic with Snowball to Snowball's debut episode...um..."Snowball". There it was shown their friendship had turned into a bitter rivalry, and whilst that still is the case in this episode, despite Snowball being even more antagonistic than before (this time he's trying to get Pinky and the Brain KILLED), Brain's more sympathetic towards Snowball his time around, insisting that he needs help and attempting to save Snowball's life. He definitely misses having Snowball as a friend.

-The way Brain says the word "buddy" is so funny (I'm referencing "Brain's Song and especially "Megalomaniacs Anonymous" here). It's not that important but I felt the need to write that down.

-Actually, speaking of "Megalomaniacs Anonymous", that episode was interesting too. Brain goes on a pretty meta rant about how the universe treats him; "...the whole universe is playing a little cosmic joke. We'll give Brain an obsession with taking over the world, and then, never let him succeed! *cue crazed laughter*". That's a pretty funny way to point out that, yeah, the premise of the show is kinda messed up. He spends the episode trying to overcome his obsession, then tries to help Pinky become more independent when he finds out Pinky is "the most pathetic co-dependent victim on the planet", even going so far as to almost kick him out of Acme Labs. The whole episode seemed like it wanted to address both Brain AND Pinky's major character flaws. Also it was a nice reminder that Brain ultimately does want to make the world a better place, even if his methods aren't great.

-In "Brain of the Future", Brain mentions being from a "post apocalyptic future", and in the Animaniacs reboot segment "Future Brain", Future Brain mentioned that there was no food in the future, just dust. Brain + Time Travel = The Apocalypse I guess, lol.

-I was really interested in seeing "Brinky", given that is was the debut and only appearance of Romy, Pinky and the Brain's son (well, their first son). Although to be honest I don't have much to say about this episode. It was good... and that's about it. Pinky's concern over Brain's health after Romy ran away was sweet. One thing I found interesting was that Brain justified treating Romy like an experiment at first because that's how he was treated all his life. Given how he bonded with B.R.A.I.N (his robot son) it's nice to know the lesson he learned really did stick. I realise Romy is mostly only remembered because of what he means to the Brinky ship, and not because he's all that interesting or prominent on his own-he only appeared in the show once-but I wouldn't mind seeing Romy come back...as long as they don't acknowledge the comics as canon (he gets with Billie in the comics, which is just...ew).

-"Hoop Schemes" is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to outdated references. Otherwise, it's a fine episode. The digs at Space Jam and Michael Jordan were funny though.

-Season 2 doesn't have as much overtly adult content as season 1 did, although given episodes were premiering on Kids WB! rather than at primetime by now, that makes sense.

-If I had to put it into words, it feels like whilst season 1 expands on the characters so that they're more fleshed out than they were on Animaniacs, but season 2 experiments with the characters, seeing how far it can push them in certain directions without making them out of character (testing Pinky's loyalty to Brain, putting Brain in and environment to completely new to him, etc).

.

.

.

When it comes to the characters, season 2 of Pinky and the Brain makes them more interesting than ever (at the time), I really enjoyed how Pinky, Brain, and even Snowball were written this season. The plots are also less formulaic than ever (again, at the time). The constant pop culture references/celebrity name-drops are starting to get pretty tiresome though, particularly in the dialogue-a lot of it sounded less like a conversation and more like Pinky and/or Brain were flexing how many celebrities they knew. So if the show could focus more on its characters and less on trying to be relevant, that would be great. Here's hoping seasons 3 and 4 made some improvements and are even better.

Click here for my thoughts on season 3!