Maybe. But it's related to lots of other comics, too. They talked about it on the DLC podcasts all the time. They were aware that they repeated themselves (in general terms - nothing like that Garfield travesty), and were always asking if it was too soon.
it's true (although apparently these are only a couple years apart)
He drew the same waitress with the same pose and the same name, when anyone could have been asking that question. Unless he has a photographic memory, this means he was looking at the first comic when he drew the second. Yet he still bothered to change up the poses. It's impressive how much the characters are identical despite not being literal copy/pastes. But I guess that jives with the fact that he never set out to make Garfield funny: from the beginning his stated intent was to make him a brand. And I can't deny that as cynical as the whole thing is, he was really, really good at what he set out to do.
I really have to think he pulled the old comic up (maybe at random) and looked at it while redrawing it. It's just too similar for me to believe anything else.
And by "he", I don't mean Davis. He hasn't drawn the comic for a long time:
While retaining creative control and being the only signer, Davis now only writes and usually does the rough sketches. Since the late 1990s most of the work has been done by long-time assistants Brett Koth and Gary Barker. Inking and coloring work is done by other artists, while Davis spends most of the time supervising production and merchandising the characters.
it's true (although apparently these are only a couple years apart)
He drew the same waitress with the same pose and the same name, when anyone could have been asking that question.
This doesn't invalidate most of what you said since it's clearly a rehashed comic, but Irma has been a recurring character for 40+ years, with that diner a recurring location for strips, so that particular aspect isn't strange.
What’s with all the Garfield hate? Sounds like y’all got a case of the mondays. Eat some lasagna and chill out
Eh, I don't hate Garfield. I just think it's not funny, and sucks.
We do all agree that Garfield Minus Garfield is great though, right? I feel like it's a weird expression of 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters. A form of art that's improved by taking away from it.
Most newspaper comics are unfunny and suck. Garfield doesn't stand out on that front, it's just that it has the most notoriety.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
Garfield stands out in that it's a model for putting business ahead of content. Many strips have been running for decades past their funny date, with some modest amount of money coming in from licensing. But Davis has openly turned Garfield into a licensing zombie, whose #1 quality is that people know it. It gets grief in the same way The Simpsons has. Both had their funny period, but they've kept it going to keep the money rolling in for so long that the bad outweighs the good.
I'd call Garfield a licensing Frankenstein's monster more than a licensing zombie. Because from the way I've heard it described, the brand was the plan from day one. To the point where he literally consulted people about what size Garfield's feet should be for maximum market penetration. Essentially he saw all the Snoopy branding (that was mostly completely separate from any jokes Peanuts told) and wanted to do that, but more intentionally.
Most newspaper comics are unfunny and suck. Garfield doesn't stand out on that front, it's just that it has the most notoriety.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
For every one of those in a newspaper issue, there were about 3-5 of Blondie, Funky Winkerbean, Wizard of Id, B.C., Luann, Family Circus, Hagar the Horrible, etc. Garfield was just another turd in the bowl.
Most newspaper comics are unfunny and suck. Garfield doesn't stand out on that front, it's just that it has the most notoriety.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
For every one of those in a newspaper issue, there were about 3-5 of Blondie, Funky Winkerbean, Wizard of Id, B.C., Luann, Family Circus, Hagar the Horrible, etc. Garfield was just another turd in the bowl.
Sure, but those good ones still existed. And the Complete Calvin & Hobbes and the Mafalda Intégrale now adorn my bookshelf while there is no Garfield product in this apartment.
Even if the gold was buried under 2 layers of shit, the gold was still there for people to find.
The world at large may be full of Garfield, but you can at least curate your own world.
Most newspaper comics are unfunny and suck. Garfield doesn't stand out on that front, it's just that it has the most notoriety.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
For every one of those in a newspaper issue, there were about 3-5 of Blondie, Funky Winkerbean, Wizard of Id, B.C., Luann, Family Circus, Hagar the Horrible, etc. Garfield was just another turd in the bowl.
Yes, but none of those other turds built a billion (yes, billion - Jim Davis alone is said to be worth $800 million) dollar empire out of turds. I think this is a valid reason to give Garfield extra hate. It's the same reason we don't hate a local councilmember whose made their career through pathological lies and constantly spinning conspiracy theories quite as much as we hate someone who managed to become president with the same behavior.
Most newspaper comics are unfunny and suck. Garfield doesn't stand out on that front, it's just that it has the most notoriety.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
For every one of those in a newspaper issue, there were about 3-5 of Blondie, Funky Winkerbean, Wizard of Id, B.C., Luann, Family Circus, Hagar the Horrible, etc. Garfield was just another turd in the bowl.
Posts
Technically, Jerry said you could make the same joke again. I'm not sure how that applies to Garfield.
He's only had Jon drink dog cum once, I know that much
-Tycho Brahe
Maybe. But it's related to lots of other comics, too. They talked about it on the DLC podcasts all the time. They were aware that they repeated themselves (in general terms - nothing like that Garfield travesty), and were always asking if it was too soon.
He drew the same waitress with the same pose and the same name, when anyone could have been asking that question. Unless he has a photographic memory, this means he was looking at the first comic when he drew the second. Yet he still bothered to change up the poses. It's impressive how much the characters are identical despite not being literal copy/pastes. But I guess that jives with the fact that he never set out to make Garfield funny: from the beginning his stated intent was to make him a brand. And I can't deny that as cynical as the whole thing is, he was really, really good at what he set out to do.
And by "he", I don't mean Davis. He hasn't drawn the comic for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield
Eh, I don't hate Garfield. I just think it's not funny, and sucks.
We do all agree that Garfield Minus Garfield is great though, right? I feel like it's a weird expression of 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters. A form of art that's improved by taking away from it.
Some of us remember times when newspaper comics didn't... okay, well, they didn't all suck. There were definite good ones: The Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, Doonesbury (granted, it's a very specific type of humor, but it wasn't lazy humor), Pogo, The Boondocks, Dilbert (yes, at once time it was funny, and we didn't know Scott Adams was a complete Scott Adams).
Garfield stands out in that it's a model for putting business ahead of content. Many strips have been running for decades past their funny date, with some modest amount of money coming in from licensing. But Davis has openly turned Garfield into a licensing zombie, whose #1 quality is that people know it. It gets grief in the same way The Simpsons has. Both had their funny period, but they've kept it going to keep the money rolling in for so long that the bad outweighs the good.
It's like Minions before Minions.
Sure, but those good ones still existed. And the Complete Calvin & Hobbes and the Mafalda Intégrale now adorn my bookshelf while there is no Garfield product in this apartment.
Even if the gold was buried under 2 layers of shit, the gold was still there for people to find.
The world at large may be full of Garfield, but you can at least curate your own world.
Yes, but none of those other turds built a billion (yes, billion - Jim Davis alone is said to be worth $800 million) dollar empire out of turds. I think this is a valid reason to give Garfield extra hate. It's the same reason we don't hate a local councilmember whose made their career through pathological lies and constantly spinning conspiracy theories quite as much as we hate someone who managed to become president with the same behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
The effect of hearing Jim Davis say, "It's the world's first enter-gaging mobile app for the restaurant business":