CTRL ALT DEL Remix

[LibertyCabbage]

This may surprise you - but Garfield is still funny, you're simply bored of it.
Anyone reading Garfield for the first time will enjoy it.

I mean, how many people actually read Garfield as a kid?
And I don't mean in a collected book kind of "read" - I mean in a "my fingers are black from this stupid newspaper" kind of "read".

What annoys me is people chanting "Garfield sucks", because among them there's only like one person who actually read it and now hates it. Everyone else simply took the first opinion they heard and ran with it only casually glancing at strips in order to reaffirm their belief that it sucks.

Damn it all to hell - I've been reading too much shiz on psychology.

I'm gonna call you on this one. Garfield is notoriously unfunny, not only for its complete lack of intelligent writing and cleverness, but also its reliance on boring and over-simplified archetypes as jokes. Consider every Garfield strip in the last ten years or so, they all have one of three jokes, in this order of prevalence: 1) Jon is a loser, 2) Garfield is lazy, 3) Odie is stupid. Now, these aren't just general overviews of the strip concepts, but are accurate descriptions of the punchlines. I just don't see how you can take a lame idea, such as a cat insulting its owner for being socially inept, and repeat it 200 times a year for decades and except to excite or even entertain anyone. The fact that Garfield has made Jim Davis highly successful and has spawned a TV show, movies, video games, books, merchandise (like the stupid car hangers), and appears in the comic section of practically every significant newspaper in the country only makes the situation more absurd.

[KittyKatBlack]

that's certainly a huge improvement.

I can go one up.




I'm so witty.

[The Neko]

Along the lines of wit...

[Dr Legostar]

that's certainly a huge improvement.

I can go one up.




I'm so witty.

also you read my mind so points for that.

[Mr.Bob]

No that there's anything wrong with the art, mind.

[KittyKatBlack]

No that there's anything wrong with the art, mind.

Of course not. In fact, I enjoy some of CAD. I was mostly making fun of the fact that this has pretty much fallen into the 'Let's see how much we can insult the creator of CAD' at this point, that I figured if that was the game, I might as well try to win.

[The Neko]

Well, my only issues with his comic rise from the fact that he can't write a gag to save his life. The personality of the author is an entirely different can o' worms.

[Escushion]

Well, my only issues with his comic rise from the fact that he can't write a gag to save his life. The personality of the author is an entirely different can o' worms.

Yes. Especially the worms part.

[Guildmaster Van]

I'm gonna call you on this one. Garfield is notoriously unfunny, not only for its complete lack of intelligent writing and cleverness, but also its reliance on boring and over-simplified archetypes as jokes. Consider every Garfield strip in the last ten years or so, they all have one of three jokes, in this order of prevalence: 1) Jon is a loser, 2) Garfield is lazy, 3) Odie is stupid. Now, these aren't just general overviews of the strip concepts, but are accurate descriptions of the punchlines. I just don't see how you can take a lame idea, such as a cat insulting its owner for being socially inept, and repeat it 200 times a year for decades and except to excite or even entertain anyone. The fact that Garfield has made Jim Davis highly successful and has spawned a TV show, movies, video games, books, merchandise (like the stupid car hangers), and appears in the comic section of practically every significant newspaper in the country only makes the situation more absurd.

I had originally typed out a long post, but the gist of it was tantemount to offing the whole forum, which wasn't my purpose or point.

To be blunt; you know nothing about people or comics.
I think you're a hypocrite for talking about Jim's "lack of intelligent writing" when your own comic is DEVOID of INTELLIGENCE; PERIOD!

The fact is these people are doing something right to get them where they are, and the people who complain about them instead of figuring out what these people are doing right are just a bunch of nobodies who will amount to nothing.

If you spent more effort learning from Garfield instead of simply hating it maybe you'd actually learn something. I hate Scott Kurtz, but the man knows what he's doing and in so provides a valuable lesson.

You just got Van'd.

[Dr Legostar]

You just got Van'd.

I imagine that involving stepping out onto the street and suddenly getting hit by a van with your face on it...

[CaptainClaude]

You just got Van'd.

I imagine that involving stepping out onto the street and suddenly getting hit by a van with your face on it...

Naaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh mate, it's when someone kicks you in the balls when they're wearing that trainer brand.

[KittyKatBlack]

This may surprise you - but Garfield is still funny, you're simply bored of it.
Anyone reading Garfield for the first time will enjoy it.

I mean, how many people actually read Garfield as a kid?
And I don't mean in a collected book kind of "read" - I mean in a "my fingers are black from this stupid newspaper" kind of "read".

What annoys me is people chanting "Garfield sucks", because among them there's only like one person who actually read it and now hates it. Everyone else simply took the first opinion they heard and ran with it only casually glancing at strips in order to reaffirm their belief that it sucks.

Damn it all to hell - I've been reading too much shiz on psychology.

I'm gonna call you on this one. Garfield is notoriously unfunny, not only for its complete lack of intelligent writing and cleverness, but also its reliance on boring and over-simplified archetypes as jokes. Consider every Garfield strip in the last ten years or so, they all have one of three jokes, in this order of prevalence: 1) Jon is a loser, 2) Garfield is lazy, 3) Odie is stupid. Now, these aren't just general overviews of the strip concepts, but are accurate descriptions of the punchlines. I just don't see how you can take a lame idea, such as a cat insulting its owner for being socially inept, and repeat it 200 times a year for decades and except to excite or even entertain anyone. The fact that Garfield has made Jim Davis highly successful and has spawned a TV show, movies, video games, books, merchandise (like the stupid car hangers), and appears in the comic section of practically every significant newspaper in the country only makes the situation more absurd.

I think the reason Garfield is so popular is because of those reasons. EVERYONE gets it. The concept is so simple that everyone, from a 5 year old, to a 85 year old, can understand the joke. It doesn't matter what social circle you're in, what your hobbies are, what your interests are. No matter who you are you get the joke. It may not be the funniest thing in the world, but it's universal. That is why Garfield is as popular as it is. Everyone knows someone like John. Everyone knows a cat like Garfield. Everyone has seen a dog like Odie. That's basicly the point of the entire strip.

[Noise Monkey]

That's why Get Fuzzy is an infinitely better strip. It has the same set up (the cat's a jerk, the guy's a loser and the dog's a moron), but it has an edge that Garfield hasn't since the mid-80's.

Garfield is safe. That's why it retains its popularity. The same reason newspapers still run Peanuts. People are afraid of change.

EDIT: Unfortunately, though, that also creates problems because while Get Fuzzy is funnier than Garfield has been in years, it also has problems when Conley obviously hits a block...mostly because the territory's been mined already.

[KittyKatBlack]

That's why Get Fuzzy is an infinitely better strip. It has the same set up (the cat's a jerk, the guy's a loser and the dog's a moron), but it has an edge that Garfield hasn't since the mid-80's.

Garfield is safe. That's why it retains its popularity. The same reason newspapers still run Peanuts. People are afraid of change.

EDIT: Unfortunately, though, that also creates problems because while Get Fuzzy is funnier than Garfield has been in years, it also has problems when Conley obviously hits a block...mostly because the territory's been mined already.

I love Get Fuzzy. But yeah, I was going to mention that too. Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried. Which is what newspapers love. Get Fuzzy made a comic about them getting harrassed by the newspaper because they said 'Damn' in a comic. Which I thought was funny.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried.

I'm fairly certain someone was offended by this questionable strip.

http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_a ... 0-ga900530

Gotta wonder what was in that cup.

[Terotrous]

That's why Get Fuzzy is an infinitely better strip. It has the same set up (the cat's a jerk, the guy's a loser and the dog's a moron), but it has an edge that Garfield hasn't since the mid-80's.

Garfield is safe. That's why it retains its popularity. The same reason newspapers still run Peanuts. People are afraid of change.

EDIT: Unfortunately, though, that also creates problems because while Get Fuzzy is funnier than Garfield has been in years, it also has problems when Conley obviously hits a block...mostly because the territory's been mined already.

I love Get Fuzzy. But yeah, I was going to mention that too. Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried. Which is what newspapers love. Get Fuzzy made a comic about them getting harrassed by the newspaper because they said 'Damn' in a comic. Which I thought was funny.

I like Get Fuzzy too, but it has a tendancy to repeat jokes (most obvious when reading it in collection form). Also, Garfield has offended someone before: there's a strip where Garfield is talking about the year, and he says "the monday's sucked". People were offended by the language. This is pointed out in one of the books with comments under the strips.

[Steverules]

Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried.

Not true. There was a letter to the editor of our local paper in regards to an offensive Garfield strip. The strip showed a bird singing in the first two panels, the third panel Garfield steps in and the four panel shows the bird song coming from Garfield's mouth while a feather floated to the ground. A bird lover wrote a blazing letter to the editor how vulgar that strip was and she was going to cancel her subscription. The reason bland sells in news papers is because the people who complain about edgy are a very vocal group. They will complain and editors don't want to deal with it. It's easier to run time tested safe strips and let it go at that. One might argue that they could obtain a younger hip crowd if they ran better strips but the younger hipper crowd gets all their info from the internet anyway and can find web comics more suited to their tastes anyway.

[LibertyCabbage]

I had originally typed out a long post, but the gist of it was tantemount to offing the whole forum, which wasn't my purpose or point.

To be blunt; you know nothing about people or comics.
I think you're a hypocrite for talking about Jim's "lack of intelligent writing" when your own comic is DEVOID of INTELLIGENCE; PERIOD!

My own work has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I pointed out some of the major flaws with the comic, and instead of defending Garfield against my criticisms, you responded with an off-topic, personal attack. Poor technique and manners, really.

The fact is these people are doing something right to get them where they are, and the people who complain about them instead of figuring out what these people are doing right are just a bunch of nobodies who will amount to nothing.

Popularity never has and never will be tentamount to quality, and your using it as an argument demonstrates your complete inability to validate Garfield's credibility. As as artistic person, I take pride in having the ability to distinguish between what's acclaimed and what's good. Sometimes these aspects may overlap (as with comics like Achewood, Penny Arcade, and the Perry Bible Fellowship which are popular webcomics I like) but to assume that a comic demonstrates quality solely by its fans and profit (or lack thereof) strips away the artistic integrity of the critic and places them in a business viewpoint which has been a destructive force on all artistic mediums it approaches for at least the last 50 years, if not longer.

If you spent more effort learning from Garfield instead of simply hating it maybe you'd actually learn something. I hate Scott Kurtz, but the man knows what he's doing and in so provides a valuable lesson.

I think Garfield's a lousy and stale comic that I'd be glad if it was replaced in the papers with something new and interesting. Also, the sum of my artistic senses are in agreement that it's a bad comic, so why would I seek to emulate it? I can tell that you're steering your arguments in support of a general "sell-out" mentality, but that can only go so far. And, also, I don't think a new Garfield would be successful at all, as somewhat exemplified by how poorly the recent Garfield movie did in the box office. I think there's a general consensus that Garfield used to be funny and clever a long time ago but it got old, and the newspapers, so vigilantly afraid of change, never abandoned the strip after it died and it's just been lingering ever since for the past 10-15 years maybe.[/quote]

You just got Van'd.

Oh, come on, I expect more from you than this half-assed post.

[Escushion]

Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried.

I'm fairly certain someone was offended by this questionable strip.

http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_a ... 0-ga900530

Gotta wonder what was in that cup.

Woooah.

[834n]

Garfield couldn't offend someone if it tried.

I'm fairly certain someone was offended by this questionable strip.

http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_a ... 0-ga900530

Gotta wonder what was in that cup.

Wha-what is even the hell?!