Thwak

Cidu Bill on Jan 28th 2010

thwak.png

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, John Deering, Speed Bump, comic strips, comics, frogs, humor | 63 responses so far

63 Responses to “Thwak”

  1. Taigan Jan 28th 2010 at 12:35 am 1

    Wow… I… I have no idea what the joke is supposed to be.

  2. Tullia Jan 28th 2010 at 12:41 am 2

    Okay, “worse, worse,” etc.: the changes the ophthalmologist is making are not working. … Except the eyepiece/headgear thing is up, not on the fly’s face.

    That looks like the frog’s tongue, but it looks rigid, too. Thwak? He’s trying to nab the fly? Who’s sitting still? And he’s hurting himself? Hurting the fly? Frustrating the fly, certainly, but there’s the ouch-stars …

    Best I can tell is this: the fly’s vision test is to predict where the frog’s tongue will strike and the frog is repeatedly missing. That doesn’t sound right, does it.

  3. Tullia Jan 28th 2010 at 12:42 am 3

    Oh, and the multiple “thwak”s have something to do with compound eyes? Testing them one at a time?

  4. John Small Berries Jan 28th 2010 at 12:49 am 4

    And this is why you shouldn’t do drugs, kids.

    Especially before sitting down to draw a cartoon.

  5. Mike D Jan 28th 2010 at 01:34 am 5

    Here’s what I think:
    1) During eye exams, they put a stick over one of your eyes to compare the strength in each one. (Which wouldn’t work if you had more than two.)
    2) The frog is holding the stick with his tongue, making it difficult to do.
    3) The fly has many eyes, making it even more difficult to do. (Tullia@3)
    And I’ll even throw in:
    4) The frog wants to eat the fly because that’s what frogs in cartoons do.

  6. mike Jan 28th 2010 at 01:56 am 6

    I think it hinges on that thing eye doctors do where they have you look through two lenses, and you say which is better. then they switch to two more and you say which is better (or worse), and on and on and on. so in this case it isn’t helping because each thing is worse than the previous one. but what is actually going on, I couldn’t say. could it be as simple as the fly was expecting to be looking through lenses and instead a frog is trying to eat him, which is definitely worse? that would be a terrible joke.

  7. Aelwr Jan 28th 2010 at 03:25 am 7

    Perhaps the frog is the one getting the eye test but his vision is so bad he is missing the fly. That wouldn’t explain why the fly is sitting in the chair and not the frog however.

  8. Soup Dragon Jan 28th 2010 at 06:34 am 8

    I guess we need Linus van Pelt for these ophthalmologist jokes…

  9. Nicole Jan 28th 2010 at 08:12 am 9

    Here is another question about this comic. The device that ophthalmologist use to test your eyes is up above the fly’s head.

  10. Carl Jan 28th 2010 at 08:31 am 10

    I’m so glad it wasn’t just me that completely failed to get this one.

  11. GROG Jan 28th 2010 at 10:07 am 11

    GROG SO CONFUSED!

  12. Jeff S. Jan 28th 2010 at 11:21 am 12

    Epic fail

  13. Marshal Jan 28th 2010 at 11:43 am 13

    Word for today phoropter.

    Perhaps he is performing Laser Assisted In-Situ Keratomileusis.
    Make that tongue Assisted In-Situ Keratomileusis.
    As opposed to Laser Assisted Sub-Epithelium Keratomileusis.

    You say LASIK and I say LASEK.

    And no I don’t know anything about either of these.
    .

  14. Elyrest Jan 28th 2010 at 12:37 pm 14

    I don’t understand it. I thought I understood it when I first saw it, but now that it’s here and I look at it again it really makes no sense. The comic isn’t “Speed Bump” though it is “Strange Brew”. When there have been “Strange Brew” comics here before we generally haven’t had much luck with them.

  15. Ian Osmond Jan 28th 2010 at 12:45 pm 15

    Maybe they BOTH have eye problems? The fly is the patient, and the frog is the doctor, and the doctor is trying to eat the fly, but he’s STILL missing the fly, ’cause HIS glasses are wrong, too?

  16. J-L Jan 28th 2010 at 01:30 pm 16

    I once saw a “Garfield” cartoon where he was sitting on the recliner watching TV. The TV said something like “Welcome back to ‘Attack of the Zombie Plumbers’ in 3-D!” In the last panel we are treated to seeing Garfield with a plunger attached to his face (with the wooden handle still wobbling) and Garfield saying “I gotta stop watching these late-late-night movies.”

    (I remember it being pretty funny. It’s a pity I can’t find a link to it or else I’d post it here.)

    When I look at the above frog cartoon I can’t help but think that the frog also has a plunger attached to its face. What looks like the frog’s tongue is really the still-wobbling plunger handle (notice the movement lines and the “Thwak” sounds used to portray the wobble). The fact that there are “pain stars” makes me think that the plunger had just been thrown.

    So I’m thinking that maybe the fly threw the plunger at the frog’s face. As to why, I have no idea, but it’s the funniest explanation I can come up with so far.

  17. Judge Mental Jan 28th 2010 at 01:59 pm 17

    Things about which I feel confident about the cartoonist’s intentions:

    1. The fly is the patient
    2. The frog is the ophthalmologist
    3. The frog is administering the eye exam to the fly
    4. While the tongue appears rigid, this is strictly poor execution on the part of the artist
    5. The “thwak” sound is a poor choice of a “Don Martin-ism” that unfortunately reinforces the rigid tongue perception
    6. The phoropter was included in the illustration strictly to help convey that this an eye-doctor’s office
    7. The cartoonist overlooked the fact that the position of the phoropter confuses whether the “better/worse” dialog should be occurring now
    8. The “punchline” is that the fly finds the tongue-flips quite un-nerving (for obvious regions in regards to predator and prey )

    Things about which I have no earthly idea:

    1. Why the cartoonist thinks that a frog sticking his tongue out is analogous to a real eye exam

  18. Judge Mental Jan 28th 2010 at 02:02 pm 18

    “regions” should be “reasons” in 17-8 above… I was lazy in letting spell-check correct my typos.

  19. Nicole Jan 28th 2010 at 02:02 pm 19

    Things I am sure about
    1) I am sure I am impressed that Judge Mental knew that thing is called a phoropter

  20. Jesse Cline Jan 28th 2010 at 02:03 pm 20

    My first thought was its actually supposed to be a frog optometrist, and he was using his tongue to do the “better/worse” thing they do when you get your eyes checked. How or why that is funny, I don’t know. I am too distracted by the fly being the size as the frog. Scary.

  21. Jesse Cline Jan 28th 2010 at 02:08 pm 21

    OK, I think the joke is the frog is eating some of his many eyes to try and alter the flies “prescription”. But the frog continues to eat them because they taste good, even though its not helping.

  22. Judge Mental Jan 28th 2010 at 02:40 pm 22

    Jesse Cline might be on to something.

    Additionally, if the frog is eating (or merely tasting) the frog’s eyes. It certainly blurs the line as to whether the the frog is an ophthalmologist (performing “surgery” on the eyes) or an optometrist (is merely altering the lens “prescription”).

  23. J-L Jan 28th 2010 at 02:47 pm 23

    This cartoon reminds me of a joke I heard recently:

    —
    A patient tells a doctor: “Doctor, I’m worried about the future. The vagueness and uncertainty of it makes me feel lonely and depressed. I keep having thoughts of ending it all.”

    The doctor responds: “The solution is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town this week. Buy a ticket and go to his show. That’ll cheer you right up.”

    The patient begins sobbing, burying his face in his hands. “But, Doctor,” replies the patient, “I am Pagliacci.”
    —

    So how does this cartoon remind me of this joke? Let me rephrase it this way:

    —
    A patient tells his frog doctor: “Doctor, I can no longer see well enough to capture food.”

    The frog doctor responds: “The solution is simple. Go visit a giant fly. You’ll have no problem seeing and capturing him.”

    The patient begins sobbing, sorrow pouring out like pain-stars. “But, Doctor,” replies the patient, “I AM a giant fly.”

    Bonus punchline: The frog doctor then recants the Hippocratic Oath and proceeds to consume his patient.
    —

    That’s the best I got.

  24. John Small Berries Jan 28th 2010 at 03:04 pm 24

    Aha! If you look at the colored version, it all makes sense - it’s a bluebottle fly! Get it?

    Yeah, I still don’t get it either.

  25. paperboy Jan 28th 2010 at 03:06 pm 25

    Oh, man; I’m starting to think cartoonists know about this site and deliberately come up with un-funny nutso concepts, then they chuckle as we go into struggle to find the non-existent joke.

  26. Pete Jan 28th 2010 at 03:30 pm 26

    Frogs eat flies, folks.

    He shoots out his tongue, catches one part of the compound eye, pulls it out and eats it. Every time he does it, the fly’s vision gets worse.

  27. Dr. Shrinker Jan 28th 2010 at 03:38 pm 27

    Except there’s absolutely NOTHING in that artwork to suggest that some of his compound eyes are missing.

  28. Arthur Jan 28th 2010 at 03:39 pm 28

    I have finally come up with something that Deering might have considered funny:

    The only thing frogs are known to do well is accurately stick out their tongues. As an
    eye doctor, therefore, the frog sticks out his tongue. Isn’t it hilarious that that
    doesn’t help?

  29. David Jan 28th 2010 at 04:07 pm 29

    Frogs eyes go down into their sockets when they swallow, to help push the food. Probably not relevant to understanding the cartoon, but it is about frogs, and eyes, and frogs eating things.

  30. Molly J Jan 28th 2010 at 04:44 pm 30

    If you guys don’t shut up about the frog eating the fly’s eyes one little bit at a time, I’m going to hurl.

  31. PepperjackCandy Jan 28th 2010 at 05:34 pm 31

    Maybe the artist goofed and didn’t put the photoropter over the fly’s eyes?

    I think it makes a little more sense that way, so I shopped it (well, technically I Paint-Shop-Pro-4.0′d it). Am I allowed to link to it here?

  32. PepperjackCandy Jan 28th 2010 at 05:36 pm 32

    Sorry, “phoropter.” I hate it when I see a syllable that’s not actually there in a word that’s new to me.

  33. John Small Berries Jan 28th 2010 at 05:47 pm 33

    Molly J, don’t read this post.

    @Pete: But compound eyes aren’t lots of little eyeballs; there would be no way for the frog to pluck individual ommatidia out (even accounting for the frog-sized fly).

    Also, two of the tongue images aren’t even near the eye; it looks like they’re thwacking against the seat. And the motion lines make it look like the frog’s waving his tongue up and down, not shooting it out towards the fly and retracting it. I’m not really sure what the heck’s going on with that tongue.

  34. The Bad Seed Jan 28th 2010 at 08:22 pm 34

    Worst. Comic. EVER.

  35. Igelino Jan 28th 2010 at 08:48 pm 35

    Hmm. JudgeMental #22 has a point. The cartoon says Opthamology, not Optometry.

    So maybe Pete is right, the frog is “operating” on the onimomopaeia (or whatever John #33 said) .

  36. J-L Jan 28th 2010 at 09:49 pm 36

    It looks like it’s “Half Appendages Day”: I only see two limbs on the frog, and three legs on the fly. (Possibly the frog has three extra appendages attached to his face; those could be tongues, or maybe just wooden sticks — I can’t tell for sure.)

    Then again, maybe the frog doctor is attempting to give the fly wooden legs so the fly will have a total of six legs. But in the process the frog slaps the fly with the fly’s own prosthetic legs. And maybe that’s supposed to be funny because that’s not what you’d expect in an ophthalmologist’s office.

    Are we certain that the thing(s) emanating from the frog is his tongue? Since we can’t see the frog’s right arm, there’s no reason to believe that the frog isn’t holding a stick, with which he’s using to beat the fly.

    I still find it strange that a frog would have a fly as a patient. Maybe that’s not really a fly — maybe the patient is just a really badly drawn frog/tadpole.

    (No, you’re right… it /is/ a fly.)

  37. fuzzmaster Jan 28th 2010 at 11:37 pm 37

    I think the key is that “This is not helping” is not referring to the same thing as “worse … worse…” The fly is being given the standard “Is this better, or worse” test, to which he’s responding “worse.” In the meantime, however, the frog doctor cannot resist the natural instinct to try to eat the fly, and “This is not helping” is the fly saying that the frog’s flicking tongue is making it difficult to focus.

    Now you’re going to say, ‘But why is the phoropter sticking up in the air?” To which I can only say, “because if it was drawn over the fly’s eyes, the artist was afraid you wouldn’t recognize it as a fly.”

    Yeah, it falls apart for me, there, too. But it’s the closest I could come.

  38. Duncman Jan 28th 2010 at 11:39 pm 38

    All I can guess at is that the fly is blind and doesn’t know it’s a frog. Also I don’t think the author knows the difference between optometry and opthamology.

  39. John Small Berries Jan 29th 2010 at 08:27 am 39

    The appendage is red in the colored version, so I presume it’s a tongue. (Not to mention it doesn’t have a hand on the end of it.)

    Maybe the whole thing was just an excuse for the cartoonist to brag, “Hey, look! I can spell ‘ophthalmology’!”

  40. Bob Jan 29th 2010 at 09:08 am 40

    Can someone explain the difference between a “phoropter” and a “phoroptor”?

    John SB - I wouldn’t put much trust in the colors, as the colorists usually have no association with the cartoonist.

  41. Molly J Jan 29th 2010 at 10:05 am 41

    Holy cow, I think I might have figured it out.

    The phoroptor looks a lot like the fly’s head. Maybe the frog (who, ironically, is quite farsighted) thinks the fly actually has the phoroptor over his head and is desparately adjusting it, all to no avail. This explains why the thing is up in the air and not over his face like it should be.

    I’m not saying it’s particularly funny, and it makes giant flies and frogs both look pretty stupid, but I think maybe that’s the joke that was intended.

  42. mkilby Jan 29th 2010 at 11:19 am 42

    Molly J (41) nailed it. That’s one problem solved. Now we just have to figure out why both the artist and the publisher thought that this non-funny item was worth publishing.

  43. Bob Jan 29th 2010 at 11:34 am 43

    Except that adjusting the phoropter (?or) when it isn’t on the fly’s head wouldn’t get the response “worse” since there would be no change from the fly’s point of view. But then again, why is the fly saying “worse” in any case?

  44. Keera Jan 29th 2010 at 11:42 am 44

    Photoropter. Oh, please, please, be a real word! (PepperjackCandyJan #31).

  45. Andrew Wheeler Jan 29th 2010 at 12:46 pm 45

    I shall attempt to reconstruct the thought processes that may have gone into creating this cartoon.

    1) Cartoonist goes to opthamologist’s office, sees phoropter. Thinks to self, “That looks like a fly’s head.”

    2) Cartoonist continues, “A fly in an opthamologist’s office would be funny! And my job is to make funny cartoons!”

    3) “But if the fly is the patient, then who is the doctor? Ah — a frog! That’s funny because frogs eat flies. I’ll have to be sure to put in the frog’s tongue to emphasize that frogs eat flies.”

    4) “Dialogue, dialogue…what do you say to a frog opthamologist. Well, the same thing you say to any opthamologist, right?”

    5) One quick drawing later, “OK, time for another beer.”

  46. tyler Jan 29th 2010 at 01:03 pm 46

    in my opinion i think this whole thing is just to show that the frog is going to eat the fly and he fly is so blind he doesn’t realize that he’s being treated by a frog so the frog decides to toy with him a bit and the guy who drew it thought that would be sorta funny

  47. chemgal Jan 29th 2010 at 02:26 pm 47

    paperboy @25 has might vote

  48. Jay Jan 29th 2010 at 06:46 pm 48

    The cartoon is not funny, but J-L @23 made me laugh!

  49. Igelino Jan 30th 2010 at 10:47 pm 49

    I like Molly 41’s explanation. Especially with Andrew 45’s Step 5, except I think Step 5 was more like Step 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 as well.

    Another optometrist joke: Zack Hill http://www.daggs.com/comics/daily/Zack%20Hill.gif

  50. Igelino Jan 30th 2010 at 10:49 pm 50

    http://www.daggs.com/comics/?c=Zack%20Hill

  51. Igelino Jan 30th 2010 at 10:56 pm 51

    Oh, I see that John Deering co-authors Zack Hill with John Newcombe.

    Help! I’m TRYING to link the 30 Jan 2010 comic, but only seem to get the current day.

  52. Elyrest Jan 30th 2010 at 11:20 pm 52

    Igelino - This link will come up with the 30 Jan 2010 Zack Hill.

    http://comics.com/zack_hill/2010-01-30/

  53. Molly J Jan 30th 2010 at 11:28 pm 53

    OK, now I’m confused again. Cheese?

  54. John Small Berries Jan 31st 2010 at 01:03 pm 54

    As luck would have it, I had an eye appointment yesterday, so I printed out the comic and brought it along.

    I asked the optometrist if there was a joke there that would be immediately obvious to eye care professionals. He stared at it for at least a minute, then ventured, “I guess the frog is… licking the fly’s eye… to try and make it better? I’m not really sure. Is it supposed to be funny?”

  55. Igelino Jan 31st 2010 at 02:53 pm 55

    @Elyrest #52: Oh cool! Thanks.

    @Molly #53: Actually, I didn’t get it either. I can only suppose it’s Deerings way of smiling at us for our discussion about the Frog discussion.

    @John @54: LOL

    Speaking of doctors tasting their patients: http://comics.com/rubes/2010-01-31/

  56. J-L Jan 31st 2010 at 11:49 pm 56

    Oh, oh! Thanks to the comments here I think I might have just figured it out!

    PepperjackCandy’s comment (#31) made me think that maybe the phoropter should be in front of the patient’s head. And Andrew Wheeler pointed out in his comment (#45) that the phoropter looks like a fly’s head. (Check out the picture in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoropter . It DOES kind of look like a fly’s head!)

    Back to explaining the joke: Because a fly’s head kind of looks like a phoropter, the frog doctor mistakenly thinks that the phoropter is already in front of the patient’s head, and tries to adjust it as if it wer. (Why exactly the frog doctor uses his tongue to adjust it, I’m not sure — maybe it’s because frogs pretty much “do everything” with their tongues.)

    Naturally, because the phoropter really isn’t in front of the patient’s face, the patient’s vision doesn’t get better at all. (*snap* “How about now?” “No change.” *snap* “Now?” “No.” *snap* “And now?” … and so on.)

    What’s a bit confusing is why the fly is saying “Worse” instead of “No change.” Perhaps he’s saying “worse” as compared to his old prescription. Or maybe those “thwaks” to the head are making him see worse.

    So now I’m thinking that the artist is simply trying to make a joke out of the fact that a phoropter kind of looks like a fly’s head.

  57. Alban Feb 1st 2010 at 06:07 am 57

    The phorpter does look like fly eyes, but wouldn’t the frog use his hands to change the lenses? I think most of you are onto something, but it’s more plausible that Paperboy @25 is right. We assume there’s a joke, so the mindf**k that ensues when there isn’t one is funny only to newspaper cartoonists, which is in itself the joke? I don’t know…

    FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU–

  58. myiuki Feb 3rd 2010 at 12:04 am 58

    wow! i am surprised this did not come to anyone’s mind before.

    i thought this was a hilarious joke about exposure therapy!!!!

    see the fly is afraid of being thwacked with a flyswatter, and being eaten by a frog/toad. and so exposure therapy is when you are exposed to the things that really freak you out–phobias. systematic desensitization. However, the fly is supposed to be afraid of the flyswatter, so therefor he cannot uncondition that response. he is instead presented with an insurmountable wall of fear, that even the most skilled of therapists cannot overcome. it is a survival instinct.

    the joke is the fly is seeing a therapist…trying to get rid of his anxiety issues…but his fears are rational, so the therapy cannot work

    when my friend showed this to me i thought this was hilarious, and then saw the name of the site, and realized that no one else got it…i guess i’m a psych nerd.

  59. myiuki Feb 3rd 2010 at 12:07 am 59

    …wait stupid ass subtitles

    ok. then i’m with you guys.

  60. J-L Feb 3rd 2010 at 11:33 am 60

    If it’s any consolation, myiuki (#58-59), I think your interpretation is considerably funnier than what the artist was going for. (If only the caption had read “Therapy for flies” instead!)

    (If you want to read what I think the artist was going for, read my comment at #56.)

  61. SpaceFetus Feb 3rd 2010 at 03:35 pm 61

    J-L, your interpretation @ #23 is so much funnier than whatever this is supposed to mean.

  62. paperboy Feb 3rd 2010 at 04:09 pm 62

    chemgal #47 and Alban #57, plead to Odin I’m wrong; I went through the “Alternative Comics 1990’s” where the joke was (wait for it) there was no joke! ha ha ha. It was “ironic” for awhile, then got flabby.

  63. name Feb 8th 2010 at 12:41 pm 63

    Maybe the frog’s tongue is supposed to be rotating the fly’s eyes like optometrists rotate those little dials in the phoropter to adjust people’s glasses prescriptions? Maybe??? But flies’ eyes don’t rotate… I don’t know. This “cartoon” is really weird.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply