Hopefully a step above demonstrative-gestural lip syncing, the illustrated song comic can combine the best features of geezer nostalgia, punning, and comic drawing. A nice touch here is that Rubin combines the song’s key line that everyone remembers with its somewhat less-familiar title.
Bonus! On Twitter they provide a bit of animation with another line from the song. Actually, one in the tweet text, and another as an animated header – it may be lost to the crop here. But try clicking *once* on the “play” icon and it may show properly.
Sent by Michelle, as a LOL/OY maybe (she says “Love this one!”). But it is sort of unclear to me! Yes, of course I recognize the underlying pun on the modern expression for dismissing something as obvious. But I don’t quite get the “No shift” as applied in context to this scene.
Sadly, I’m missing something. I don’t see what the mystery or investigation is here – when Holmes says “We must get to the bottom of this”, what is the *this*? And if “no shift” is meant to be part of the answer, is it that the car was built leaving out the transmission; or that the transmission has been stolen; or just that the driver failed to shift when they should have? Also, why are the wheels splayed? Is that just his stylization of “very old model car”? Or is it meant to show there was an accident?
Maybe I’m just expanding on “Comic I don’t understand” to carp on aspects of the cartoon. Sorry, but that happens sometimes, I guess.
BTW, there are no spoilers for my questions at the Tomversations blog entry, but there is an amusing background note about his previous attempt to use this idea, and reliance on a different meaning of “shift”.
Here’s a Reality Check from Stan, who says ” A couple of things didn’t quite scan with this for me. If that bubble is what I assume it is, I don’t think he’d need to be ‘told’. Also, why are the fish wearing regal headgear?”
Ah, so young to be falling into the essence of Meta!
And thanks to Shamie F who sent it in and says: “I think it has something to do with a flying cup looking for a flying saucer. If that’s the whole point then OY! I’m thinking I must be missing something though.” We think the default tag here would be LOL moreso than OY (a flying saucer is called that just because of resemblance to an ordinary saucer), but how does the gang weigh in on the “is that all there is?” factor?
Here’s one from BillR:
Very smart to use Peter’s name – the others are more easily identifiable.
But on the griping side of things, the wolf I think did not emerge a winner from any of their encounters. Maybe it depends on versions of the stories.
Thanks to Michelle for this LOL bit of pained irony:
Here’s a CIDU from Michelle. We here at CIDU HQ could hardly make sense of it, not being familiar with Wawawiwa at all. Browsing in the archive on GoComics did help considerably, both seeing plenty of recent examples and reading this “About” statement:
Wawawiwa is a series of funny and wholesome comic strips featuring anthropomorphic food, objects and animals inspired by life and family.
Here’s Michelle’s CIDU, which remained puzzling even after getting a little into the Wawawiwa world view:
As an example of WawaWiwa outlook (more about Awww than LOL) here is one from this August, where it doesn’t take much reflection to get the gentle joke.
Carl Fink sent in the Loose Parts, which we supplemented with the Lockhorns on a similar motif.
Is it kind of charming that Loretta still has romantic expectations?
Carl says “So, let me ask this question: has anyone seen an actual ‘Tunnel of Love’ at a fair in the past, say, 40 years? Would anyone under that age have any idea what’s going on here? Is that old carnival attraction even remembered now only because of cartoons like this one?”
Also, what is going on? People keep climbing into those boats even though they can see the solid wall and the mounting crashes? Is it almost as much their incompetence as that of the designers of the attraction?