Comics are funny when you change them (sometimes) February 26, 2008 1:36 PM Subscribe
Garfield minus Garfield: "Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life?"
posted by SpacemanStix (127 comments total)
78 users marked this as a favorite
Previously. Garfield without Garfield: "I hypothesize that if you remove all the text of Garfield's speech, or thoughts, or whatever that is, that it becomes an oddly surrealist comic." posted by languagehat at 1:41 PM on February 26
Oh! It's not removing Garfield's thought bubbles, which has been done. It's removed Garfield entirely. posted by Pronoiac at 1:41 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Just missed your comment. It's a bit different, but it is similar. Probably inspired by the original. posted by SpacemanStix at 1:41 PM on February 26
Shoulda previewed. Lots of good memories around here! posted by languagehat at 1:42 PM on February 26
Not the same as previously, by the way.
You could have headed off a lot of gotcha by putting that in the original post. But you've probably figured that out by now. posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on February 26
I liked it. I hope this post stays, it's infinitely better than the crappy TortureTunes post. posted by OmieWise at 1:44 PM on February 26
You could have headed off a lot of gotcha by putting that in the original post. But you've probably figured that out by now.
Yes, lesson learned. Sorry for the confusion. posted by SpacemanStix at 1:46 PM on February 26
A little different. Just muting garfield isn't the same as shopping him out completely, the same way that someone who talks to cats isn't quite as crazy as somebody who talks to nothing. It would be pretty cool to combine these with the Garfield Randomizer and see what came out the other end. posted by mhoye at 1:49 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
These range from nearly laugh-out-loud funny to strangely poignant and sad. Mostly the former. posted by owtytrof at 1:49 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Completely without Garfield is much funnier. I am hereby replacing "meh" with "with garfield" and "LOL" with "without garfield".
Wow, that's surprisingly good. I detest Garfield, but I like the strip a lot without him. posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:52 PM on February 26
So the problem all along was Garfield. Color me unsurprised. posted by Astro Zombie at 1:52 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
This is beautiful. So much better than the original, it's actually funny this way. posted by doctor_negative at 1:52 PM on February 26
I suppose the trick to Garfield is removing things, then. Well, here's my humble attempt. Kind of like Rothko meeting Lichtenstein, I'm sure you'll agree. (And it must've been done before.) posted by soundofsuburbia at 1:54 PM on February 26 [5 favorites]
this is surprisingly awesome. I think I'm going to start a totally run of the mill pet comic strip, take out the talking pets and see if it's similarly awesome. posted by shmegegge at 2:00 PM on February 26
Totally not a double. And god damn these are charming. I'm starting to suspect that Garfield is actually a subversive effort by Jim Davis to create a kind of mainstream "found materials" archive for people to do clever things to. The aggressives Paws, Inc. legal team is just for plausible deniability.
This is spectacular. I'm sending it around to all the people I curse on a daily basis for sending me dumb crap they found on the internet. Consistency is the lasagna of little minds.
And for the record, the first Garfield book was actually very funny. More or less downhill since there, though. posted by haricotvert at 2:31 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
I imagine you could do this to many other comics and get a similar effect.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that for the last few minutes. Garfield is an unusually solid choice here, for a couple reasons:
- Very few characters. Removing Garfield is removing a very significant part of the strip, compared to other comics that tend toward larger casts. Not a showstopper; you could work around this by eliminating several characters, or all but one, from a given strip, or otherwise be selective about which strips qualify for editing. But still: with Garfield, it's like they cut out just about exactly half fo the strip, here.
- Extremely spartan art. I'm not sure if there's a strip out there that is more consistently minimal in its layout, and as much fun as it'd be to nuke Luann from Apartment 3-G, it'd take a lot more filling work to repair the background. Again, not a showstopper, but a lot more work than the dirt-simple "fill in wallpaper and countertop wash" thing going on here. posted by cortex at 2:33 PM on February 26
Fucking brilliant. posted by farishta at 2:33 PM on February 26
I wonder if they did this to free up Garfield so he could concentrate on his film career. posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:38 PM on February 26
That's pretty much what I was thinking, cortex. Also, as mentioned above, Jon was already pretty damn sad so while doing this to other comics might make the character sound nuts, it's doubly effective here. posted by puke & cry at 2:39 PM on February 26
somebody needs to make a hardcopy version of this available. garfield sans garfield is the funniest cartoon i've read in years! posted by saulgoodman at 2:40 PM on February 26
I didn't expect that to be as funny as it was, just as I didn't expect the live-action Garfields to be as funny as they were. It's as if Garfield is itself not humor, but merely the primordial ooze of funny waiting for a lightning strike to invigorate it. posted by Bookhouse at 2:42 PM on February 26
I agree that Garfield is a particularly good choice precisely because of Jon was a pretty sad character to begin with.
I used to love Garfield when I was kid. Not really sure why. But even when I was 8 I felt really sad for Jon. He seemed lonely and alienated. His only friends where a dog, a cat, and a John Oates looking-dude. When not at home, he ate alone at a diner. His dates were disasters, mainly because he was so over-eager.
Maybe I read Garfield as a way to show Jon some solidarity. posted by DrGirlfriend at 2:48 PM on February 26
Brilliant. Sometimes the mundane can be made extraordinary with the smallest of touches. posted by tehloki at 3:30 PM on February 26
My god, Jim Davis is brilliant. I had no idea.
Garfield is a mechanism by which his ideas can be accepted by mainstream papers- like wearing a cell phone allows schizophrenics to talk to themselves without alarming anyone. posted by small_ruminant at 3:35 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
This is great, but it gets me thinking... What if someone removed Hobbes from Calvin & Hobbes? Just thinking about it makes me kinda sad. posted by slimepuppy at 3:47 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
I can't wait for the day when we can digitally remove Woody Allen from all of his movies. posted by Dave Faris at 3:50 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Simply awesome. That is all. posted by slogger at 4:02 PM on February 26
Well, there goes my period of Comics Curmudgeon sobriety. This is awesome. posted by Tehanu at 4:14 PM on February 26
Amazing how the world's most unfunny strip suddenly becomes either hilarious or deeply philosophical by removing the main character.
A brilliant resurrection of a beloved childhood comic awash with a new profundity that speaks to the perils of our modern adult lives. posted by MasonDixon at 4:33 PM on February 26
This, this is the best of the web. posted by oddman at 4:42 PM on February 26
I think "Cathy" would have been better without Cathy. Or her Mom, or her boyfriend, or...Can we have Calvin and Hobbes back, please? posted by misha at 4:43 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
What if someone removed Hobbes from Calvin & Hobbes? Just thinking about it makes me kinda sad.
The difference, though, is that Hobbes is already explicitly a figment of Calvin's imagination. It essentially already is Garfield sans Garfield. Perhaps Calvin & Hobbes could be re-cast as a prequel to this Garfield-free Garfield; maybe someone should do a strip about the transition from Calvin to Jon, from the whimsical imagination of a mischievous child to the psychotic ravings of a schizophrenic shut-in. I'd read that! posted by Sys Rq at 4:44 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
Well, there goes my period of Comics Curmudgeon sobriety. This is awesome.
Speaking of, CC links today to both this and to a Fark photoshop thread vamping off Mary Worth. A lot of the latter is actually pretty meh, but I like this one. posted by cortex at 4:47 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
What if someone removed Hobbes from Calvin & Hobbes? Just thinking about it makes me kinda sad.
I feel like I've seen this. Not the vaunted fake Ritalin ending strip, but a series of actual strips with lively Hobbes replaced with stuffed Hobbes and his word balloons nixed. I could be imagining it, though.
The difference, though, is that Hobbes is already explicitly a figment of Calvin's imagination.
Well, yes; but the question isn't what fits the canon of the original strip; it's what the results are like when you decontextualize the damn thing and make something new out of it. posted by cortex at 4:49 PM on February 26
I can't wait for the day when we can digitally remove Woody Allen Spike Lee from all of his movies.
I can't wait for the day when we can digitally remove Woody Allen Kevin Smith from all of his movies.
I can't wait for the day when we can digitally remove Woody Allen Quentin Tarantino from all of his movies. posted by mrmojoflying at 5:04 PM on February 26
Hobbes is not explicitly a figment of Calvin's imagination. I'm pretty sure there are times when events in the strip would seem physically impossible without Hobbes existing. At the very least, Watterson's intention was to make it ambiguous. posted by revfitz at 5:07 PM on February 26
a John Oates looking-dude
...who mysteriously disappeared. In the introduction to one of the Garfield treasuries (help me -- my son loves Garfield) Jim Davis says something like "Where did Lyman go? Don't ask." posted by The corpse in the library at 5:10 PM on February 26
I just looked at the last week's worth of Get Fuzzy strips, and I don't think they would be improved by this process. Mostly because the characters actually respond to what the others say.
Of course, by that criterion, the strip would probably best be improved by removing everyone but Bucky. posted by A dead Quaker at 5:26 PM on February 26
It looks like he/she also removed Jon from a few of the panels. posted by mrgrimm at 6:54 PM on February 26
Garfield was in fact always a brilliant meditation on depression and the mundane oppression of modern life. If you look at the comics, John never talks to Garfield, the cat merely mocks his pathetic life in word balloons. Taking Garfield out of the strip makes this more clear, but the narrative does not change between the original and altered strips. I think the hate so many people have for Garfield is that they unconsciously feel the strips condemnation. Children love the strip because they empathize with Garfield and intuitively enjoy the mocking of their parents pathetic lives. posted by afu at 7:01 PM on February 26 [16 favorites]
It looks like he/she also removed Jon from a few of the panels.
Can you side-by-side this? I was assuming those were strips where Jon just wasn't framed into every panel. posted by cortex at 7:06 PM on February 26
Garfield is not missing, he was assassinated. posted by Tube at 7:12 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
Damn, that thread appears to still be going--I think I bookmarked it a year or so ago, and it actually starts in 06. posted by Citizen Premier at 10:17 PM on February 26
I like the jokes posted by MNDZ at 10:32 PM on February 26
Thank you for saying that, afu. Putting aside the shrewd lucrativeness of the Paws Inc. machine, Garfield is a fucking dark comic strip. No other mainstream comic strip is as brutal toward its central (human) character. The silences, the glances at the audience, the unendingly bland setting. It's dour.
I get a kick out of the various Garfield hacks that people have made, but I really think that they only highlight the absurdity that is the Garfield universe; they're really not subverting anything.
I secretly long for the real Garfield movie to come out; the one that consists of endless repetitions and painful silences and Jon hating his life, with no resolution whatsoever. posted by roll truck roll at 12:13 AM on February 27 [5 favorites]
Yeah. That was an "interesting" period at Paws, too. Just not in a good way. Let's just say that particular storyline was the result of a self-imposed pressure to prove Garfield could be "serious", the way the artist's favorites (Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, etc) were. posted by Thorzdad at 4:40 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
Garfield still irritates me for the sheer laziness of composition. Most of the time it seems that he's just copying and pasting the same half-dozen sketches with different speech balloons. posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:00 AM on February 27
Garfield still irritates me for the sheer laziness of composition. Most of the time it seems that he's just copying and pasting the same half-dozen sketches with different speech balloons.
Yeah. That was an "interesting" period at Paws, too. Just not in a good way. Let's just say that particular storyline was the result of a self-imposed pressure to prove Garfield could be "serious", the way the artist's favorites (Calvin & Hobbes, Bloom County, etc) were.
That's interesting...
Christie: What about Jim Davis?
Watterson: Uh...Garfield is...(long pause)...consistent.
Christie: Ooo-kay...
Watterson: U.S. Acres I think is an abomination.
Christie: Never seen it.
Watterson: Lucky you. Jim Davis has his factory in Indiana cranking out this strip about a pig on a farm. I find it an insult to the intelligence, though it's very successful. posted by anazgnos at 10:14 AM on February 27
Ooh, that's a bummer. And totally unnecessary -- looking at the original, I think that one would have been way funnier/trippier if they had just left Jon alone in panels 5 and 7. posted by somanyamys at 11:42 AM on February 27
Huh. Knowing the strips were altered beyond merely removing Garfield and Garfield's thought bubbles kind of totally ruins it. posted by Sys Rq at 11:46 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
Well, arfuckle. posted by cortex at 12:11 PM on February 27
This is the Creationism of Garfield mashups. They started with a conclusion and then created evidence. posted by roll truck roll at 12:35 PM on February 27
Is everything that seems truly awesome just a great big lie? posted by Tehanu at 12:55 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
roll truck roll, those "historical" Garfield comics are fakes Jim Davis placed on the internet to test your faith in the bitterness of Garfield. posted by Tehanu at 12:55 PM on February 27 [4 favorites]
Reading these the first time, I assumed they had been constructed beyond merely removing Garfield from extant strips wholesale. They just seemed too good to be true. It doesn't really change the effect for me. If the premise is changing Garfield strips for comedic or poetic affect, there's no reason to draw a line on precisely which changes are acceptable. posted by anazgnos at 2:13 PM on February 27
Yeah, on second look, the concept is more "What if Jon Arbuckle didn't have a cat to talk to?" than "what if we took Garfield out of the comics?"
This is clearly the drama version. I'm waiting for a horror version where a mysterious invisible spirit consumes great pans of lasagna and kicks Odie. Jon Arbuckle: Depressed and Haunted. posted by Tehanu at 2:32 PM on February 27
Thorzdad: Well, interestingly I think, those named strips, when they're serious, also do it in the process of being funny. One of my least favorite C&H strips, now that I think about it, is the early sequence where Calvin finds, cares for, fails to save and mourns for a dying raccoon. Very little in the way of jokes, and it seems manipulative now. A totally serious Bloom County story I can't remember, and would suck anyway -- that kind of strip would be preachy without laughs.
Meanwhile, the abandoned-Garfield story is actually effective because Garfield has never, before or since, tried to be serious. And the tone is exactly right too; there are hundreds of webcomics that try the half-fully/half drama approach and are the failest fails to ever fail a fail. Fail.
Meanwhile, the Garfield story just comes completely out of left field and unnerves the hell out of the reader. There's some of that in Garfield: His 9 Lives as well, a standalone sequence of stories, only about half of which recognizably about Garfield. It is a tremendously underrated book IMO.
I guess what I'm saying is, I miss the Jim Davis that would take risks like that. It sounds very much like he was trying to push himself as a artist, was whacked soundly on the nose by whoever, syndicate, unenlightened readers, merchandisers, and became shy about ever trying something like that again. It is a real shame. IMO, of course. posted by JHarris at 10:26 PM on February 27
Subscribe
posted by norabarnacl3 at 1:39 PM on February 26