Garfield - Now with plot!

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Strip = nicht so gut
Saturday morning cartoon = ausgeseichnit

....HEEEEEEEYYYYYYYY KIDS!!!

[Col]

Garfield always had little plots. They were really cute. I'm not sure I'm a fan of having some kind of major shit like that. Also: Jon getting married will be like Cathy getting married.

Like - WTF?!?!?!

Also, who in hell would want to marry Cathy? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Best cross-over, Cathy marries Jon.

no wait, that would still be stupid.

If anything, I'd be curious to see them go on a few dates. Perhaps combining the two might bring about something readable?

[MixedMyth]

By which you mean the last twenty years? ;D I admit, I enjoyed the early Garfield, even though it was mostly a marketing campaign and all....and the Halloween movie is still awesome. But then again, they used to actually get out and DO stuff. And change facial expression. Just look so bored all the time!

Is it really Davis doing it? I thought it was written by a comittee.

[Jackhass]

Is it really Davis doing it? I thought it was written by a comittee.

I hear he still rough sketches the comics and whatnot, but others finish them.

Oh, and as much as people online bash it, Garfield is better than most webcomics...even several popular web favourites I'd say.

I think a lot of people who complain that it's the same thing over and over and nothing changes should instead look at it and try and figure out...how has this comic been doing the same thing for 20+ years and yet still remained entertaining for millions of people? A lot of webcomic writers who write 50 comics then run out of ideas and go on hiatus could stand to examine that.

[The Neko]

I read through the current storyline and I have to admit that I think it's an improvement, slightly. I mean, they're going out and DOING something, rather than just sitting at the table in the home listening to John being Emo n'shit.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I.......John being Emo n'shit.

Hmmm, I've got an idea for a drawing. Now, just to find some time.

[McDuffies]

Garfield always had little plots. They were really cute. I'm not sure I'm a fan of having some kind of major shit like that. Also: Jon getting married will be like Cathy getting married.

Like - WTF?!?!?!

Also, who in hell would want to marry Cathy? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Best cross-over, Cathy marries Jon.

no wait, that would still be stupid.

Not if it was drawn by Neko *hint hint*

I'm wondering if this marriage would last or not, concidering that if Jon married the vet, she'd put Garfield on that diet.

Or put him out. He he he he.

Oh, and as much as people online bash it, Garfield is better than most webcomics...even several popular web favourites I'd say.

Name one popular web comic worse than Garfield. Lots of them have better art by far, and those that don't, have superior writing.
Well, P***** excluded, of course.

I think a lot of people who complain that it's the same thing over and over and nothing changes should instead look at it and try and figure out...

My complain is that what he's repeating and not changing wasn't any good in the first place.

how has this comic been doing the same thing for 20+ years and yet still remained entertaining for millions of people?

Because there are millions of people with bad taste in the world? Because lots of people are afraid of change, disoriented when they're offered new things, unwilling to accept something new into their lives and, on top of it all, lazy? Because, as you surely know, popularity is not a measure of quality?

A lot of webcomic writers who write 50 comics then run out of ideas and go on hiatus could stand to examine that.

I prefere people who just stop doing something once they aren't competent to do it anymore.

[MixedMyth]

Name one popular web comic worse than Garfield. Lots of them have better art by far, and those that don't, have superior writing.
Well, P***** excluded, of course.

Did you say Pupkin?

Heh heh. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

*flees*

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Name one popular web comic worse than Garfield. Lots of them have better art by far, and those that don't, have superior writing.
Well, P***** excluded, of course.

Did you say Pupkin?

Heh heh. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

*flees*

...god DAMNIT!

Well, at least you didn't link it.

[Jackhass]

Oh, and as much as people online bash it, Garfield is better than most webcomics...even several popular web favourites I'd say.

Name one popular web comic worse than Garfield. Lots of them have better art by far, and those that don't, have superior writing.
Well, P***** excluded, of course.

I don't really want to get into naming specific comics.

how has this comic been doing the same thing for 20+ years and yet still remained entertaining for millions of people?

Because there are millions of people with bad taste in the world? Because lots of people are afraid of change, disoriented when they're offered new things, unwilling to accept something new into their lives and, on top of it all, lazy? Because, as you surely know, popularity is not a measure of quality?

Hey, don't go pissing on the comic reading audience just because they don't read what you think they should read. Those same lazy idiots with poor taste are the same people you want to read your comic if you have any aspirations for them to become popular outside this small insular Comicgen community.

And popularity is a measure of quality. Sorry, I don't accept that this comic became by far the most popular in the world based purely on hype, or luck or whatever...it does what it does very well.

A lot of webcomic writers who write 50 comics then run out of ideas and go on hiatus could stand to examine that.

I prefere people who just stop doing something once they aren't competent to do it anymore.

That has nothing to do with anything...my point is, most people around here have dreams of becoming long-term succesful comic artists somewhere in the back of their head. Thus there's a lot to be learned from studying the most succesful comic on the planet that's been going 25 years or so on a very simple premise.

I'm not saying everyone has to make they're comic just like Garfield...but instead of just mindlessly shitting on it because it's popular and mainstream and we're oh-so rebellious webcomic artists, why not try and examine and learn something from it because obviously Garfield has done some things very very right.

[KittyKatBlack]

Name one popular web comic worse than Garfield. Lots of them have better art by far, and those that don't, have superior writing.
Well, P***** excluded, of course.

Did you say Pupkin?

Heh heh. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

*flees*

Damnit, you'ved Doomed us all!!

DOOM! DOOM! Doom! Doom! Doom!

[McDuffies]

Hey, don't go pissing on the comic reading audience just because they don't read what you think they should read. Those same lazy idiots with poor taste are the same people you want to read your comic if you have any aspirations for them to become popular outside this small insular Comicgen community.

And popularity is a measure of quality. Sorry, I don't accept that this comic became by far the most popular in the world based purely on hype, or luck or whatever...it does what it does very well.

First of all: I'm not pissing on anyone. That majority of people are seeing the first thing that is offered to them due to pure inertia is the fact. How many times have you gone to theatre and picked among films you've remembered being advertised without even considering other films? How many times have you bought an album just because tv played a song from it over and over until it got into your head? Don't people keep watching tv series long after it stops being any good just because they want to see same characters doing same stuff? Don't many people rather buy new episode of some Marvel or DC comic even though they know it's no good anymore - instead of risking and picking a comic they haven't read before? Go ahead and deny that any of those happen.

Those things are states of fact as I see them. They are not ment to be derogatory comments, I just don't tend to prettify reality. I know a lot of good people who have awful taste and I would never call them "idiots" - which is a term you used, not me. I personally won't judge an entire person based only on one comic he likes or doesn't like.

Yes, I would like some of them to be my audience. I would believe that that's a step up. Perhaps I'd believe that, reading my comic instead of Garfield, they've gone a step up, that I've done something useful in this world, that my comics might teach them something they didn't know, make them see something they haven't seen before. None of them they get reading Garfield.
On the other hand, perhaps I simply think that humans are complicated beings and as that completely capable of showing poor taste on one side, and surprisingly good on the other side.

See, for instance, unlike what you said, Garfield is not the most successful comic on the planet. The most successful comic is one very good comic called "Peanuts". There's possibility that part of audience that read Peanuts is the same as part of audience that readfs Garfield. What does that say about those people? Nothing, expect that people are, bottom line, unpredictable.

And finally, if you don't accept that popularity is not a measure of quality, you're doing that now that it supports your claim in arguement. But you yourself will be able to name dozens of popular things that don't have any quality whatsoever. Think of soap operas, series that are written on the run and having actors speaking text that's being whispered to them at the moment, through microphone in their ear. I don't think I even have to name any examples, you know them as well as I do.
There are many, many, many, many, many reasons why something could be popular, besides quality.

but instead of just mindlessly shitting on it because it's popular and mainstream and we're oh-so rebellious webcomic artists,

Who's doing that?
Mindlessly shitting? People are giving some very good arguements. Agree with them or not, mindlessly shitting is not the proper term. On the other hand, the only arguement you brought to discussion is that Garfield is popular, therefore it must be doing something right. Yep, right, for Jim Davis' wallet.

Oh-so rebelious webcomic artists? You are mestaking our mothive for hating Garfield. Noone here is rebelious, in fact, lots of our comics are influenced by mainstream and commercial comics more than anything else. We are not a bunch from college campus or some snotty artists who reject everything as soon as it turns popular, always just talking about "high art". In fact, some of us (though not me) are critical about high art as much as Garfield. You've been here enough to know that.

why not try and examine and learn something from it because obviously Garfield has done some things very very right.

Most of us do want to go pro or get popular some day. But for most of us, that's not the highest priority, in fact, most of us will continue to make our comics even if a prophet comes and tells us that our comics will never be popular.
See, one of major drives for all of us is to make comics we like, a kind of comics we'd like to read.
If we hate Garfield, but tried to learn from it, very likely result of that would be a comic we hated. Following your advice, most of us would be making comics we hate, clinging to a vain hope that one day we might, perhaps, with tiny chance, be popular.

Problem is, you're assuming that people who expressed opinion against Garfield here have some deep, dark mothives to hate him - jealousy, elitism, or whatever. We don't, man, we simply hate the comic just like we hate any other comic that we hate.

[KittyKatBlack]

See, for instance, unlike what you said, Garfield is not the most successful comic on the planet. The most successful comic is one very good comic called "Peanuts".

I find this statement odd, since Peanuts actually does the same thing over and over again as much as Garfield does. Only with kids...

Oh Charlie Brown... when will you ever learn... Lucy will ALWAYS pull the ball away...

[Terotrous]

I think they mean in terms of how much money it made.

[KittyKatBlack]

I wasn't talking about popularity. I was talking how McDuffies thinks Garfield is horrible and Peanuts is good, even though they're basicly the exact same comic, only one features a cat and a lonely man, and one features a dog and a lonely boy. In fact, if I didn't know any better, Garfield might just be Peanuts in the future, where Charlie Brown changed his name to Jon Arbuckle.

[Joel Fagin]

Peanuts uses running gags. Garfield tends to use the same joke over and over. It's a bit different and I'm not sure I can explain how.

At the very least, though, Garfield hasn't changed whereas Peanuts was introducing new characters, situations and running gags right up until the end.

- Joel Fagin

[KittyKatBlack]

Peanuts uses running gags. Garfield tends to use the same joke over and over. It's a bit different and I'm not sure I can explain how.

At the very least, though, Garfield hasn't changed whereas Peanuts was introducing new characters, situations and running gags right up until the end.

- Joel Fagin

I dunno. There's a lot of characters in Garfield, some that weren't there in the begining. Liz the Vet for example, is not a character from when the strip first started. Neither is Nermal. The cast isn't as big as Peanuts, I'll give it that, but the themes are ultimately the same. Let's look at some similarties:

Garfield- Jokes involving Garfield wanting food.
Peanuts- Jokes involving Snoopy wanting food.

Garfield- Garfiled having conversations with a stuffed animal.
Peanuts- Snoopy having conversations with a bird we can't understand.

Garfield- Garfield occasionally messes with Odie.
Peanuts- Snoopy occasionally has qualms with 'The cat next door.'

Garfield- Jon Arbuckle has a crush on Liz, who doesn't pay attention to him.
Peanuts- Charlie Brown has a crush on "The Redheaded Girl" who doesn't pay attention to him.

I could continue, but that would be beating a dead horse.

[Terotrous]

Peanuts also has some degree of soul, owing to the fact that it was actually written and drawn by the person who created it.

Also, Peanuts came way before Garfield, so some things that appear very cliche are probably because Peanuts existed. There were a large number of things that at the time were revolutionary.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

As much as I used to love Garfileld, I have to say Peanuts had way more soul to it.

[Joel Fagin]

I dunno. There's a lot of characters in Garfield, some that weren't there in the begining. Liz the Vet for example, is not a character from when the strip first started. Neither is Nermal.

Oh, I know that, but it was twenty years ago when they got introduced. Once it had settled on a dynamic, it stayed like that. Shultz was introducing new repeating characters all the time.

Let's look at some similarties:

Garfield- Jokes involving Garfield wanting food.
Peanuts- Jokes involving Snoopy wanting food.

Garfield- Garfiled having conversations with a stuffed animal.
Peanuts- Snoopy having conversations with a bird we can't understand.

Garfield- Garfield occasionally messes with Odie.
Peanuts- Snoopy occasionally has qualms with 'The cat next door.'

Garfield- Jon Arbuckle has a crush on Liz, who doesn't pay attention to him.
Peanuts- Charlie Brown has a crush on "The Redheaded Girl" who doesn't pay attention to him.

The difference is that what you listed for Garfield is all Garfield is. Peanuts has it's running gags but they don't make up the entire comic day in and day out.

- Joel Fagin