Comments on: Comic Critics #23!

By: Stu

Stu — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:13:25 +0000

no, seriously, there are people who don't love XKCD. Sure, I don't love all of his flights of fancy, but that's some seriously good comicing there.

By: T.

T. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:18:15 +0000

Okay, any comic strip that causes T to rant some more about Marv Wolfmanâ€™s New Teen Titans gets points deductedâ€¦

By: Jono11

Jono11 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:13:01 +0000

"Jokes are supposed to have punchlinesâ€¦"--Not necessarily. But readers of a comic are supposed to stop reading it if they perpetually hate it and the only compliments they can occasionally muster up for it are "It didn't suck as much as I expected it to." Regarding XKCD: His problem is that he doesn't know how to structure a visual joke. His material's funny, if you're intelligent enough to get it, but he often hamstrings himself by not structuring the visual joke very well. The "Reverse Bel-Air" strip is probably the best example of that failure.

By: Jack Norris

Jack Norris — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:57:23 +0000

Blackjack:
Well, only two or three so far have used the format and used the video window as a panel frame, and in each case it's added nothing to the joke (if anything the opposite; the format has weakened the joke). The best ones have all been "behind the scenes" with the characters. If they were to abandon the conceit and shift all character rants to ones addressed at one another, I wouldn't miss it in the least (if anything the opposite...). The title would still be just as applicable if we were never (or hardly ever) the in-story web audience.

By: Dalarsco

Dalarsco — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:40:15 +0000

I wouldn't normally insinuate that someone doesn't find something funny because they aren't smart enough, but XKCD does usually require some background in metaphysics, computer programming, physics, advanced math, or some combination thereof. It's not that you aren't smart enough that with some study you could get XKCD, it's that you don't have the knowledge base. Plus, there are some not meant to be funny, just contemplative. @Xander: The snark doesn't lessen the impact, the snark is the impact. It wasn't supposed to be a joke for people who don't like to see Superman cry, it was a joke against people who get mad about Superman crying.

By: Xander

Xander — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:13:07 +0000

I'm going to say that I enjoyed this comic, too. I'm also tired of the sobbing Superman that we occasionally get. Plus, as has been argued over regarding Spider-Man and Aunt May, it's not like Pa Kent hasn't died before; he just came back again as comic book characters are wont to do. The last panel, though, wasn't really necessary. I felt that the end after the end didn't really work, and the snark seemed to lessen the impact of the rest of the comic.

By: Graeme Burk

Graeme Burk — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:16:48 +0000

Okay, any comic strip that causes T to rant some more about Marv Wolfman's New Teen Titans gets points deducted...but I have come today to praise this strip, not bury it. What actually works for this is that it does just enough panels to make the joke work. Often times I think Comic Critics is undone by the 5-or-so panel grid it's normally locked in. It needs either more, but usually less, panels, to make it funny.

Getting rid of the grid altogether is a very good thing. It can only improve the pacing. Now try telling some jokes in 3 panels for a change.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:21:15 +0000

Or perhaps comic strips don't need jokes about lasagna, tepid sitcom dialogue, or stupidly obvious puns to be funny?

By: sgt rawk

sgt rawk — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:10:53 +0000

It's Earth Two funny.

By: St. Michael

St. Michael — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:14:37 +0000

Perhaps funny is not an objective quality?

By: Blackjak

Blackjak — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:04:34 +0000

I second the change in format. Scrolling down a comic makes more sense on the web, rather than sticking to a traditional book format. This seems to suit the medium more...

@ Jack Norris: I thought the point of the Web Video Format, was what "Comics Critics" was about. Two criticise comics online... In a video...

By: DanCJ

DanCJ — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:07:06 +0000

Is the girl character perpetually pissed because sheâ€™s not getting laid?

That confused me a bit until I realised that "pissed" doesn't mean the same thing in America.

A bit of a weaker one this week for me. I like the change of format though.

By: Gokitalo

Gokitalo — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:49:32 +0000

I liked this one, but as others have said, the last panel wasn't as strong as the rest. You know, before this installment, I was kind of wondering if the "Comics Critics" cast itself was bringing down the strip; I loved "Green ego monster" and it didn't feature the main characters until the last panel. But this latest installment makes me think there's hope for them yet. Maybe they just need to be fleshed out more?

By: matthew.

matthew. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:54:39 +0000

I find XKCD funny. I find it very funny. I think this strip is hit-or-miss.

By: Lynxara

Lynxara — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:38:10 +0000

This strip is a good idea that struck me as not quite finished yet-- like it was one or two rewrites from being really hilarious. Instead I smiled at it a little, but more because of how sick I am of weepy whiny Superman than anything the strip was doing to really amuse me beyond saying something I agreed with.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:16:01 +0000

Hee hee hee.

By: Jack Norris

Jack Norris — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:55:07 +0000

I don't think that the web-video format gimmick does anything to improve the strip, make it funnier, or get the message across any better. It's actually more of a pain to read in that one-panel-at- a-time-scrolling-down-a-page-for-each-one format.
Unless the use of the video format is an intrinsic part of the gag, or is essential to get the joke across, which I really don't think is the case here, I'd say drop it.
The only reason for it I can think of is that it was deemed necessary to provide an excuse for the character addressing the "camera", but I dismiss that notion utterly as just plain silly.
Could have been the usable germ of an idea for a joke here, but the vertically-arranged-series-of-video-panels format just put me off & annoyed me.

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:36:13 +0000

Very funny. Nobody should be exempt from being made fun of for making bad writing decisions and that includes Geoff Johns

By: Agent_Torpor

Agent_Torpor — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:32:47 +0000

Is the girl character perpetually pissed because she's not getting laid?

By: T.

T. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:50:08 +0000

I agree the last panel didn't help, but I don't think it actually hurt it either.