mcDuffies wrote:Uh... so what you're saying is basically that I'll like the comic if I stop thinking while I read it?
Are you asking me or Ryan?
Heh. I'll answer it even though prettysenshi grabbed it before Mcduffies could edit it away, because it's a valid question -
Yes McDuffies - that is what I'm saying. I regularly watch movies and suspend my disbelief. I don't have a problem with not digging too deeply into K&K's world and just reading as I go. It's just not a serious comic.
I equate the rampant eating of each other in K&K to cartoon violence. It's done for comedic effect. You never see characters sobbing over the loss of a loved one due to predation because that's not what the comic emphasizes. Likewise, while Warner Bros could, and DID, make a cartoon showing what cartoon violence would really be like (Remember "Kill Da Rabbit"? I burst into tears as a little kid when I first saw that), they don't emphasize that aspect of cartoon violence.
K&K just isn't disturbing. It could be, if the artist went that direction. But, it isn't.
The Neko wrote:It's like... imagine Warner Bros. making a cartoon that explains biologically why Bugs can walk on two feet and talk, or why Elmer Fudd is somehow shorter than him. It brings your attention to what it's trying to explain away, which is contrary to the purpose of explaining it.
I really don't have an answer to this. It's a valid point. In hindsight, the whole domestication thing is a direction I didn't care for in K&K. But I don't think that (as an example) causes K&K to be a disturbing comic.