Comic Book Resources

"Suck an onion in hell."? Interesting choice of words. I'll start using it just to see if it catches on.

I don't get it.

Mad Monkey, YouTube has been removing videos that are seen as being critical of Scientology, basically.

Don't worry, Mad Monkey, it's simply not funny, there's no use in getting it.

But videos that are critical of other religions are just fine.

It's a privately owned enterprise - they can do what they please. That doesn't make it right, though.

But Scientology isn't a religion...

It's a pyramid scheme...

Okay, so I've read all of these Comics Critics strips and I have to say they're not funny, well-written, or well-drawn. In fact, they are the exact opposite of these things. So why is it running?

Tekende...you go to far...they're well drawn.

I would say the art isn't bad for a webcomic. I'm fine with the art.

The content though, I'm just not sure is worthwhile.

I agree that they're not very entertaining. There has been precisely ONE that was amusing.

In fact, they are the exact opposite of these things. So why is it running?

There has been precisely ONE that was amusing.

You guys are full of yourselves to an incredible degree.

Nah, the art isn't bad, but the blond guy and the girl seem to be lifted from another strip (overall design, not the actual artwork). I think the girl's in "The Rack", not sure about the blond guy, maybe he's just Generic Webcomic Character 2H.

joshschr, how does criticizing something indicate that I'm full of myself? I'm somehow not allowed to have an opinion without being arrogant?

[quote]I would say the art isn’t bad for a webcomic.[/quote]

I think webcomic art should be held to the same standard as any other comic art.

Anyway, I think it's pretty bad. There's no life to the style, the character designs are generic and joyless, and look at the arms and hands, especially in panel two and on the girl in the last panel.

I've seen worse, and I guess the art gets the action across, but it could be better.

Sorry, I didn't assume you were a literary or art critic. Calling someone's work the exact opposite of well-written or drawn without those kind of credentials strikes me as pretty arrogant.

If they hire Alex Ross to draw the characters hitting each other in the face with pies, can I read one of these without seeing someone post "I don't get it"?

I know, I know. I just have to read the comic without reading the comments. Bad on me.

Whitmore and Hanvey are damned brave for posting these, given the rude comments they get everytime. It's not the best comic I've ever read, but it might be Whitmore's first attempt at the gag strip, and I think Hanvey's art works for this kind of thing. Basically, I enjoy the comic. I think the comic critics should spend more time critiquing comics, though.

Punchlines said by Jamal that would have made this a "gag strip"

1. "No matter what they say, M:I3 was crap."
2. "Well played, Xenu. Well played indeed."
3. "Thetan levels rising!"
4. (In panel three) "Sorry, you're at audit level two. Give me two hundred dollars more and I can explain it all in level three."
5. "I confused Xemnu and Xenu, does that make me the bad guy?"
6. "I said Xen-A was lame, not Xen-U!"

As it is, there's not really a joke in the comic, just a straightforward story with an odd exclamtion at the end. Maybe a little less oblique a reference next time?

Whitmore and Hanvey are damned brave for posting these, given the rude comments they get every time.

I think so too. Especially since most of us that do enjoy the strip tend to read it, smile or laugh, and then go on to the next thing; I wouldn't have been moved to comment at all if I hadn't noticed the incredibly rude dogpile of complainers.

It's not a question of someone being "allowed to have an opinion." Have all the opinions you want. It's the presentation that comes off as arrogant. Think of it as astonishment at the incredibly bad manners of people who feel the need to bitch repeatedly in print about free content they click on voluntarily, even after knowing they haven't cared for previous installments. The air of entitlement surrounding the complaints is where the 'arrogant' assessment is coming from.

I was just offering constructive criticism.

Greg Hatcher just said what I was about to say. This is the kinda thing Scott Kurtz was talking about for the most part. None of you guys are offering constructive criticism just the typical "Ugh this sucks" that make it seem like the internet is nothing but a bunch of joyless ass-hats that are angry about being allowed to access free content.

While many of the negative comments really do come off as a bit rude (even for a public comment board), they are no less valid (one does not need to be a learned critic to give an opinion about a publicly-displayed work). The strip creators can take solace in the fact that they were able to provoke a reaction from their putative audience, regardless of the reaction's tone. People are taking the time and effort to say something about the work, whether good or bad, and any artist I think, would prefer some acknowledgment of their work than none at all.

More constructive criticism:

After re-reading all the strips (and the comments, which were mostly positive, until some people started standing up for the creators when they weren't being denigrated.) I've got to say that for the most part it's a nice little strip.

1.Some more differentiation between Booktopia and Comic Connection's layout or color scheme would be nice (something happened between the art test posted on the comic critics website and the actual strip, making everything darker, and I wasn't sure where strip 5 too place.)
2. Some of the strips could use a little more editing (Josh's second balloon in strip 3, and strip 7's last two panels could be cut to punch it up)
3. Strips 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 (especially 10) are well done.
4. Strip 5's got a minor pacing issue, like the 4th and 5th panel should be combined, or perhaps Josh could chase the guy down on the street to make his case?
5. Strip 1: have panel three as the thought balloon, cut panel four, widen panel 5, with the "Hey Ultimates 3!" lines included, then panel 6 (or the new panel 5) would be the bearded guy's line with Josh's head in his hands, or face palming.

All-in-all some minor things, but a good effort. Keep it up, but don't drift too far from your core story (like you did this week)

Anyway, I think it’s pretty bad. There’s no life to the style, the character designs are generic and joyless, and look at the arms and hands, especially in panel two and on the girl in the last panel.

OK, is this supposed to be a parody of bad criticism to point out that the strip is either good or bad (or something?)

If it IS parody it's too oblique for it's audience. If it's NOT, well, my dead dog could write better criticism.

(Example: "Arf, arf, arf, arf, arf, arf" *Dies*)

"It’s not a question of someone being “allowed to have an opinion.” Have all the opinions you want. It’s the presentation that comes off as arrogant. Think of it as astonishment at the incredibly bad manners of people who feel the need to bitch repeatedly in print about free content they click on voluntarily, even after knowing they haven’t cared for previous installments."

Hear hear!

Okay, so I’ve read all of these Comics Critics strips and I have to say they’re not funny, well-written, or well-drawn.

I think they're funny and I think the art is fine.

As for well-written... it's a gag strip, what do you want from it?
Should Sean be hiding metaphors attacking the UN's failure to take decisive action in Darfur?

In fact, they are the exact opposite of these things.

Says you.

So why is it running?

Because we hate you?

Thanks to all who explained why this was supposed to be funny.
I pretty much stay away from YT, so it's no surprise to me that I had no idea what this strip was about.
Now that I do, it's still not funny...and what does this particular strip have to do with comic books?
This strip did start off pretty good, but it seems to be more "miss" than "hit" now.
Nevertheless, I can appreciate the work that's put into these strips...just not always understanding the "humor" in them.
That said...
Keep 'em comin'. They may not all be winners to some, but they are gold to others. It's just a matter of finding that common ground that'll make us (at the very least) crack a smile.

No, the last thing they should be shooting for is "common ground". That means the lowest common denominator, and that's how we get crap like Family Circus and Marmaduke.

Yeah, the strip is called 'Comic Critics' and so I think it should stick to things that they would be talking about, as opposed to 'universal jokes' like burnt meatloaf or some other crap.

Well part of the reason this one isn't specifically focused on comics is that it is a set-up for the next few strips which is somewhat our first stab at a mutli-part story that is about comics and technology .

It will be interesting to see the reaction to the next few strips.

and the comments, which were mostly positive, until some people started standing up for the creators when they weren’t being denigrated

Really?
I just re-read all the comments sections, and I don't think anyone played defense as offense.
You may think that there is nothing wrong or insulting with a post that lists six lines you feel would have made the strip funnier, but that doesn't mean there isn't.

You may also consider such a post to be constructive criticism, bu that doesn't mean it is.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to the next few strips.

Really?

I would've just assumed that someone's going to tell you you're flat out shit, someone's going to break it down to tell you why you're shit, someone's going to tell you the better punchline they thought of and one person's going to say it's shit because they don't get the joke and in between that a few people will defend the strip/sing it's praises.
I think Dan was right when he said my (jokingly) proposed comic strip about the comments section of this comic would be a one gag comic.

Well more about the subject matter than the traditional response to the comic itself.

If you don't like it don't read it. It always makes me chuckle. I guess you have to have a slightly skewed perception that allows you to make strange connection to get the jokes.

I think the writers need to study (not just read) some successful webcomics. The one that comes to mind (similar situations and characters) is userfriendly.org.

My major gripe about this strip is that each one is independent of each other. There's not enough continuity to make anyone care about the characters. They very rarely -if ever- use each other's names and sometimes you can't tell if a person is the same from one strip to the next. The woman in this strip is a good example of that. Who is she? Does she know these other guys? Has she always known them? Does she work with them? In an earlier strip she worked in a different store and didn't know what a Skrull was. Was that the same person or a different person drawn the same? Is it even a woman? The art isn't clear on that.

Also, the jokes aren't especially funny. (Again, check out userfriendly.org for essentially the same jokes told a couple years ago.)

@joshschr:
"Sorry, I didn’t assume you were a literary or art critic. Calling someone’s work the exact opposite of well-written or drawn without those kind of credentials strikes me as pretty arrogant."

You don't need to be a paid/acknowledged critic to have an opinion and voice it. And voicing an opinion does not make a person arrogant. Saying something like "I can write better than this in my sleep" is arrogant.

JOSHCHR: I was thinking virtually the same thing Matt is. I don't need a certification from a cullinary school to know that I don't like beans. In exactly the same way, I don't need an art or literature degree or training as a critic to have an opinion and to voice it. It's not arrogant, it's just an opinion. I'll even add that the stated opinion isn't useful because I haven't offered any reasons or suggestions, but we're in no way being arrogant.

In think a lot of the comments here are not constructive, not well written and often plain rude, so why are they still posting?

J to the AAP: You've just described pretty much every forum/comment system on the Internet.

In fact, they are the exact opposite of these things.

Says you.

Um, yes. Exactly. Says me.

And to everyone else, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize I needed a degree in literary criticism in order to state my opinion. How silly of me, right?

And to everyone else, I’m terribly sorry, I didn’t realize I needed a degree in literary criticism in order to state my opinion. How silly of me, right?

You might have a point if that was what was being addressed...let's go to the tape.

Okay, so I’ve read all of these Comics Critics strips and I have to say they’re not funny, well-written, or well-drawn. In fact, they are the exact opposite of these things. So why is it running?

This initial comment is what I was talking about. It's ill-mannered. You show up (apparently repeatedly) for something you don't like simply so you can jeer at it. The criticism aimed at you has nothing to do with your opinion and everything to do with your lack of courtesy and arrogant sense of entitlement. That's what I'm talking about. The fact that you tried to give constructive criticism later isn't the point. Constructive criticism is fine. Being a jerk is not.

@you three (or four. Who's counting?)

I don't believe any of you stated it as an opinion. There was no "I don't think it was funny", you said, "it's not funny". In my opinion, that's arrogant, unless you are some sort of professional critic.

The people who dislike these comic strips are more vocal than the people who do. There are plenty of posts on CBR that I don't like to read. I don't go to any of them and say "why is this still being posted". I just don't read them.

Again, I know, I just have to stop reading the comments for this topic. I like to since people usually have something interesting to say. The contingent of those who check in just to say "I don't get it" and "it's not funny" are kind of grating.

So setting yourself up as the arbiter of acceptable criticism isn't arrogant?

So setting yourself up as the arbiter of acceptable criticism isn’t arrogant?

Keep knocking down those straw men if it makes you feel better. I don't think it's unreasonable-- let alone "arrogant"-- to suggest that criticism of something you get for free at least be offered politely.

This is the most I've ever agreed with Hatcher about anything in the history of ever. Preach it!

1) I just love these people who keep saying the strip isn't funny, but they STILL KEEP READING IT! Do you people have any idea how Goddamned ridiculously self-parodying you are? I mean, are you TRYING to be an example of everything reasonable folks hate about comic book fans? I realize that your inability to grasp subtlety and nuance and implication is part of why you don't ever get the strip, so let me spell it out for you: people who hate a comic and keep reading it, or hate a TV show and keep watching it, are pathetic. I know it plays into the pop culture idea of everyone being a critic, and you can't really be a critic (goes the thinking) unless you can be an ass and complain all the time. So people ACTIVELY SEEK OUT things they don't like, so they can whine. One guy I know on a message board used to have a sig, "I read comics so I can bitch about them on the internet," and I really think that's what this mentality betrays to the rest of us.

So Mad Monkey, Threemileisland, Tekende, Scavenger, Eric P., and all the rest of you that I missed, if you'll just move past the fact most of the humor of the strips is AIMED AT YOU (and get over it already, please, because laughing at yourself is part of what makes you a decent human being), and get over whatever umbrage you take at my harsh words, allow me to explain this strip: on one level (see panel 2), it satirizes the element of American pop culture that sticks only with what is safe and known and readymade (Youtube), despite the fact that such concepts wouldn't exist if someone hadn't pioneered them. On a second level, however, it also bites right back (see panel 3) at people who seem TOO focused on changing everything all the time. Elitists who can't enjoy anything once the mainstream has caught on, self-styled trailblazers who never seem content to just enjoy a trail already set, and would rather imagine (falsely) that they are charting a bold new course with Bittorrent, or Dailymotion, or link blogs, or Digg, or rejection of the comic-book format, or being anime fans, or snowboarding, or listening to any new genre of music. They call themselves cutting edge, when they're just followers of a different sort. Finally, in panel 4, probably the most obvious level of humor, and the most obvious punchline, is a reference to the rash of Youtube and other online videos that have lambasted Scientology, often far more harshly than the "religion" actually deserves, whatever it's done. This punchline has a dual purpose, however, as it also satirizes Scientology's penchant for taking out court injunctions against anyone who so much as breathes the wrong way, specifically in cases involving Youtube and other online video sites.

They say if a joke has to be explained, then it isn't funny. But the joke didn't have to be explained. You people are just too dense to get it.

2) As regards the art and stylistic choices: Yes, they're not super-original. Yes, the blond guy just looks like Randall Graves from the Oni Clerks comics. Yes, the chick looks like every annoying protolesbian feminist female webcomic character ever. Yes, the black guy looks typically and generically cool. THAT ISN'T THE POINT. THIS IS A METAFICTIONAL WORK WITH MUCH MORE OF A FOCUS ON SATIRIZING THE FANDOM OF COMIC BOOKS THAN ON ADVANCING THE SEQUENTIAL ART FORM. I love the way some self-styled arbiters of cool expect certain works to do everything possible in the form, and advance every aspect of it that is possible, while giving crapass works like Blankets and the new American Splendor a free pass for inexplicable reasons.

3) "Maybe a little less oblique a reference next time?"--No. There was nothing oblique about it. Nothing at all. The final line isn't even a reference, it's just a funny string of words.

4) "As it is, there’s not really a joke in the comic, just a straightforward story with an odd exclamtion at the end."--That kind of humor really hasn't been a substantial, credible part of the American humoristic landscape since the early 1960s. That idea of the "gag" is no longer what the gag means, just as the "joke" is no longer what the joke used to be. Jokes and gags still follow the same structure, but they are frequently more loosely defined and more organic, which makes them better and makes them MUCH more appealing to most Americans and most Westerners.

And may I just say that the suggestions for what would have made the strip a "true" gag strip were HORRENDOUSLY bad and PAINFULLY unfunny and EXCRUCIATINGLY easy and obvious? I mean, Family Circus-level bad, unfunny, easy, obvious. Just bad.

5) "I pretty much stay away from YT, so it’s no surprise to me that I had no idea what this strip was about."--Is there one of these guys EVERY time? "Yeah, well, I don't spend a lot of time at the grocery store, so I didn't get his humorous reference to grocery stores, and now that the concept of a grocery store has been explained to me, it's still not funny." These guys who desperately hope we believe that they just don't hang out in the dumb places we do, so that's why they don't get the reference to something as broad and obviously well known as Youtube or Scientology, and anyone who does is vaguely stupid, and anyone who thinks that a broad and obvious reference could ever be the basis for a joke that people should be expected to get is wrong and dumb. These guys who are just too dense to get an easy, softball joke, so they try to turn it around and make the joke dumb, and make anyone who thinks it's an easy joke feel wrong and bad. These arrogant, annoying, asshole people.

6) I'm not even that big of a fan of the strip! As someone who has studied humor and the history of humor and what has worked and what has not worked, I don't think niche humor (as in every strip EXCEPT this one) is a very good investment of skill and energy. What works much better is broadly appealing humor that is DISGUISED as niche humor (such as Mitch Hedberg, George Carlin, Dane Cook, David Cross, etc.) But humor that only appeals to people that are on the inside works when you're swapping stories with your buddies, or sharing a private laugh in the company of acquaintances and/or friends.

So this isn't coming from someone who's just resentful and pissed that you aren't enjoying something I enjoy, because this is FAR from a favorite of mine. Generally, I don't even like webcomics. I find them shallow, similar, boring, unfunny, and nichey. I read this one because I do like to support the idea of comic-book fandom, as an unashamed and proud subculture, but I'm far from a major supporter of the strip. I just think there is some SHOCKING d-baggery going around here, and the sad thing is that I think it's just the most people want to bitch about something, and this is an easy, safe target. Sad.

Jono? ThatJonoGuy? Is that you?

Anyway, the webcomic... yay! Bring on the Token!