Comments on: Farmers

By: David

David — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:42:31 +0000

I felt I should link the original Arbuckle “site” for commendation–http://www.truthandbeautybombs.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4997&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:32:24 +0000

Thanks, Powers. I looked at ARBUCKLE. Both it & GARFIELD MINUS GARFIELD are good.

By: David

David — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:19:00 +0000

RE: Arbuckle — look how much funnier this strip is without Garfield’s reaction–http://tailsteak.com/arbuckle/

By: Powers

Powers — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:07:17 +0000

“Arbuckle” was the prototype, so to speak, for “Garfield Minus Garfield”. It showed only what Jon sees and hears, following the convention that he cannot understand Garfield’s thought bubbles. By removing Garfield’s commentary, we’re left with a profile of a man reacting and speaking to his oddly behaving pets, with no snarky punchlines and often little explanatory text.

I’m not saying it’s better than the original strip, but it provides a different perspective. “Garfield Minus Garfield” is just surreal for the sake of surreality.

By: assdad

assdad — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:10:13 +0000

Garfield, often, takes risks and creates unusual humor. I love Jim Davies because he is not afraid to create dark humor and allows his audience to draw its own conclusion. This may not be clear if one reads the comic on a daily basis but read through the full archive (a nice bonus) on the official website and it will prove to be much more complex and clever than most guys assume. (10/27/08, 08/04/06, 10/04/03, 04/02/08, 09/11/88, 10/23/89, 5/14/00)

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:34:19 +0000

Powers, you answered your own speculation. GARFIELD MINUS GARFIELD is interesting & entertaining. What was ARBUCKLE?

By: Powers

Powers — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:54:22 +0000

I wonder if it’s possible to mention Garfield anywhere on the Internet without someone feeling compelled to mention “Garfield Minus Garfield” at some point.

“Arbuckle” was occasionally funny and at least insightful. “GMG” is just dumb.

By: Lord-z

Lord-z — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:44:29 +0000

Sam - That is because Davis’ design for Garfield is to simple to show details like that, so we have to take certain things at face value. John is somewhere between plain-looking to butt-ugly, even though he looks practically identical to Liz, who is a total hottie. Garfield is extremely fat and Nermal is extremely cute, even though they look practically identical. Occasionally, they will go the extra mile to show hot and ugly, but it is rare.

And this is a running joke in Garfield, not that they have much besides running jokes, that the talking weight always has a creative way of telling Garfield that he is fat.

By: Lost in A**2

Lost in A**2 — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:05:16 +0000

Newspaper cartoonists “take chances,” and sometimes they get
censored for it. Consider “Modesty Blaise” and Mort Walker’s
navel oranges.

As for the present cartoon: you’ve accepted an anthropomorphic
cat. What’s wrong with a sentient scale?

By: Knute Snortum

Knute Snortum — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:20:28 +0000

Mini rant: Newspaper comics are steady, stable, but don’t (can’t) take chances — and so are accused of being bland. Webcomics are unpredictable, “out there” and therefore sometimes more interesting, but they are mostly unreliable. So you take your pick: stable and bland or radical and unreliable.