StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Late edit, because I'm kinda effin tired:

In regards to memes: I've always seen xkcd as doing the *right* thing with memes. It doesn't mindlessly repeat them, with the humour solely being, "Lol, meme!" Rather, it includes the meme as an element in a larger joke, making it humourous not because it's a meme, but rather because it's taken a meme and either altered it, or applied it as a supplement in an already humourous situation.

Examples:















And I just realized something:

Instant Sunrise wrote: However, the stick figure with no hat has stood in as the author surrogate before, and there is no clear indication what is man with no hat and Munroe.

Okay, aside from the females and the sociopath with the hat, they *all* have no hats, no hair, and look exactly the same. They're fucking *stick* figures. I think you're trying too hard to make something out of nothing here.

Oh, and my apologies for not donating my own samples of shitty webcomics. If I find a webcomic shitty, I don't read it and forget about it, thus my lack of examples.

Man, I remember this one really shitty webcomic called "Two Roommates and a Boyfriend"... Wonder whatever happened to it?

Instant Sunrise wrote:Well lets see, the 'art' is a bunch of lazy, inexpressive stick figures. As I said before, I'm not opposed to minimalist art or even stick figures. The artist doing them just needs to understand that a stick figure needs to be really expressive in order to pull off what could be done with regular full-figure drawings.

Erm, I've never had any issues figuring out exactly what was going on in xkcd comics. Incredible art isn't needed because the humour's either in what's being said/implied, or can easily be expressed through stick figures. Besides, he's a decent artist.

It is also an established convention of comics that the LESS detailed and specific a character is, the more that the audience will place themselves into it. And by association, a critical viewer will place the author in.

Which gives no indication as to whether or not the 'critical viewer' is actually *right* about superimposing the author into every comic. This is something that requires, you know, evidence.

As for your first point, essentially yes. Munroe gives no indication when the plain stick figure is supposed to be speaking for him, and when that character is a character in his own right. Chances are when it isn't explicitly spelled out as speaking for the author, The bald guy is still speaking for Munroe in some capacity, intentionally or not.

By your say so?

Plus, the first one I posted, that whole speech is written in the first person anyway. Meaning that on some level, Munroe IS speaking through that character.

Um, actually it's written in the first person because it's that character giving a toast at a wedding, it kind of says that right at the end of it. Just because Munroe decided to show 'flashback' pictures instead of a character holding up a wine-glass with speach bubbles does not change this.

As for your comment that xkcd doesn't just regurgitate memes, that's funny, because I seem to recall a good proportion of the comics playing memes like lolcats and rickrolling completely straight. Besides, how is this "[pointing] out ways in which [rick-rolling is] sort of stupid."

Agreed, and I amended that statement in a later post. Still, he doesn't 'regurgitate memes', he makes them a part of the joke, and not the joke in and of itself.

I don't see any kind of commentary on the idea of rick rolling, just that "we rick-rolled Rick Astley and it was funny guys."

Actually, it's funny because Rick Astley never intended for his song to become a meme associated with pulling a joke on someone and making them do a double-take. Do it to him, with his own song, is bringing the meme around full circle to its unintentional creator, and thus is funny.

To use a more recent example, this one right here. Let's see Ron Paul, Cory Doctorow, and Tron references. Again, played completely straight. I'm not seeing how he is commenting on these memes. Merely regurgitating them.

Erm, actually it seems to be a humourous analogy to the Ron Paul campaign, taken to absurdity with the tron references. Again, my first post on it was innaccurate.

Instant Sunrise wrote:Well lets see, the 'art' is a bunch of lazy, inexpressive stick figures. As I said before, I'm not opposed to minimalist art or even stick figures. The artist doing them just needs to understand that a stick figure needs to be really expressive in order to pull off what could be done with regular full-figure drawings.

Sorry, you lost me here.

The aim of this comic is to be funny. As long as it doesn't visually repel me, I don't really give a shit what he does with his drawings as long as it makes me laugh.

By way of contrast...my favourite comic of all-time is Doonesbury, between the Nixon and Bush Snr presidencies. Most of his best comics consisted of the same shot of the White House for four panels, and dialogue. The only change would be on the front lawn, and even then it would be minimal. And you know what? It was funny. It was fucking hilarious, far better than the shit (well drawn, full of expressions, but still shit) he started producing during the Clinton years.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Erm, I've never had any issues figuring out exactly what was going on in xkcd comics. Incredible art isn't needed because the humour's either in what's being said/implied, or can easily be expressed through stick figures. Besides, he's a decent artist.

Comics are a visual medium, while xkcd does at least try to make something happening in each frame, I still think that the art itself is unexpressive and still. I am aware that he can draw things like landscapes, amd it has been used for a visual gag. However, comics are a visual medium first and foremost, and while good artwork can sometimes save poor writing, rarely is the reverse true.

Illustration is an inherently limited medium. You have lines on a peice of paper and they are supposed to represent a human being. Stiff art is where all the characters just stand still and move around awkwardly. The best example off the top of my head is that "Ethan falling out a window" gif in the OP.In illustration, a character needs to put their whole body into a pose or a move. If a character throws a punch, a stiff pose would just be the arm extending into the punch, and not leaning into the punch and putting their whole body into it. And a lot of times, it is not as realistic, but it is more natural.

Which gives no indication as to whether or not the 'critical viewer' is actually *right* about superimposing the author into every comic. This is something that requires, you know, evidence.

Most if not all of the comics, have a sympathetic protagonist, who the reader is expected, on some level to root for. This is pretty basic stuff here. As for superimposing the author into the comic, this is really just the inherent ambiguity of a stick figure comic. If this were a comic that had characters with names, and recognizable features, we wouldn't be having this argument. Some of these are clearly written from the perspective of the author, and some are not. However, the everyman character has been shown to do or say things that are kinda creepy and weird from my perspective. The Megan thing was a bit of a stretch in hindsight, and I will conceed that.

By your say so?

Again, this is really just because of the inherent ambiguity of a stick figure comic. A blank stick figure like that really requires the reader to put a lot into the character. And what they put in is either going to be themselves, if they sympathize with the character, or the author if they don't. But again, I already concceded that the Megan thing was a stretch.

Agreed, and I amended that statement in a later post. Still, he doesn't 'regurgitate memes', he makes them a part of the joke, and not the joke in and of itself.

See, that is where I disagree. When I read a lot of these, I don't see tham as really expanding on the memes, just making a callback to it and saying "See remember that thing that is funny? Well here it is!" a'la _____ Movie.

Actually, it's funny because Rick Astley never intended for his song to become a meme associated with pulling a joke on someone and making them do a double-take. Do it to him, with his own song, is bringing the meme around full circle to its unintentional creator, and thus is funny.

Why yes, that is an explanation of the joke.

Erm, actually it seems to be a humourous analogy to the Ron Paul campaign, taken to absurdity with the tron references. Again, my first post on it was innaccurate.

I mean you are right that it DOES try and recontextualize the meme in a new context, but in all of those, the gag still relies on knowing that meme and laughing at it because it is a callback to that meme. Again, I really can't stand that type of humor. Again, xkcd is not trying to create its own humor, but relying upon the jokes of other people.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Man, I remember this one really shitty webcomic called "Two Roommates and a Boyfriend"... Wonder whatever happened to it?

Yes, I did in fact used to write and draw an awful webcomic with that exact name. However, after some serious soul-searching and reflection, I realized that it was not something that I would want to read, let alone write. So I stopped making it, and then the domain expired and now points to some search portal, end of story. But thanks for the attempted character snipe.

man this thread is hilarious

first off we have instant sunrise taking this too seriously

then oni koneko damien kawaii desu gozaimasu flipping shit because xkcd was called out on its meme regurgitation

ps if your whole joke is mentioning a meme it's not an ironic twist

especially not if half the strip is just reciting part of the meme and then giving advice on how to use that meme effectively

Losonti Tokash wrote:man this thread is hilarious

first off we have instant sunrise taking this too seriously

then oni koneko damien kawaii desu gozaimasu flipping shit because xkcd was called out on its meme regurgitation

ps if your whole joke is mentioning a meme it's not an ironic twist

especially not if half the strip is just reciting part of the meme and then giving advice on how to use that meme effectively

I didn't know Stark had a mentally deficient groupie?

Instant Sunrise wrote:Comics are a visual medium, while xkcd does at least try to make something happening in each frame, I still think that the art itself is unexpressive and still. I am aware that he can draw things like landscapes, amd it has been used for a visual gag. However, comics are a visual medium first and foremost, and while good artwork can sometimes save poor writing, rarely is the reverse true.

Illustration is an inherently limited medium. You have lines on a peice of paper and they are supposed to represent a human being. Stiff art is where all the characters just stand still and move around awkwardly. The best example off the top of my head is that "Ethan falling out a window" gif in the OP.In illustration, a character needs to put their whole body into a pose or a move. If a character throws a punch, a stiff pose would just be the arm extending into the punch, and not leaning into the punch and putting their whole body into it. And a lot of times, it is not as realistic, but it is more natural.

So your criticism is that a comic that uses stick-figures is bad because the art's not good/realistic enough?

Maybe this is just me, but if someone were reading a comic strip with stick-figures with the assumption that the comic is going to get its point across through visual realism... I'd think that person is kind of an idiot.

"A Webcomic of Romance, Sarcasm, Math, and Language" That's what it says at the top of every Xkcd page. It doesn't say anything about visual realism or 'natural' looking figures. I read the comics expecting to find the humour in the language they use, their portrayal of romance, their sarcasm, and puns/jokes involving math. If you're reading the comics with an expectation of realism or naturalism, you're just as stupid as someone who comes to a forum titled "Get your fill of Science, Sci-Fi, and mockery of stupid people" expecting a flame-free board about stock-prices and custom-built cars.

Most if not all of the comics, have a sympathetic protagonist, who the reader is expected, on some level to root for. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Protip: Xkcd is not like most webcomics. There is no over-arching storyline. It's most often a series of short jokes and scenarios that are resolved in one page. The only recurring character is the hat-wearing, sociopathic asshole, who doesn't exactly fit the mold of 'sympathetic protagonist'. Trying to hold it to the same standard as, say, OOTS or Dr. Ninja is like trying to compare Robot Chicken to House MD.

As for superimposing the author into the comic, this is really just the inherent ambiguity of a stick figure comic. If this were a comic that had characters with names, and recognizable features, we wouldn't be having this argument.

And that is your problem. You're coming into this with the assumption that there is some overarching plotline/setting to the entire comic, when there isn't. It's a series of short skits that stand pretty much independent of each other. It's a couple stick figures who act as the vehicles for the author's jokes, not a cohesive storyline that represents some message the author is trying to get across with developed characters that represent aspects of his psyche.

Some of these are clearly written from the perspective of the author, and some are not. However, the everyman character has been shown to do or say things that are kinda creepy and weird from my perspective. The Megan thing was a bit of a stretch in hindsight, and I will conceed that.

I still fail to see what's creepy or weird about it. Yes, if applied in real life, some of what is said would be very fucking creepy. But it's a goddamned *comic*. The situations in which these lines are given take place in a fictional environment that more often than not devolve into completely ludicrous situations. This might come as a bit of a shocker: Comics are not real life. People do things in comics that they would never even consider doing in real life. It's called 'fiction' for a reason.

Again, this is really just because of the inherent ambiguity of a stick figure comic. A blank stick figure like that really requires the reader to put a lot into the character. And what they put in is either going to be themselves, if they sympathize with the character, or the author if they don't. But again, I already concceded that the Megan thing was a stretch.

You're putting far too much into this. The stick figures are there to be a vehicle for whatever joke the current comic is making, nothing more. For fuck's sake, it's a comic with stick-figures, not a novel.

See, that is where I disagree. When I read a lot of these, I don't see tham as really expanding on the memes, just making a callback to it and saying "See remember that thing that is funny? Well here it is!" a'la _____ Movie.

I was hoping the point could be made just by posting the comics, that I wouldn't actually have to explain the humour behind them to you... but...

1st comic I posted, 'The Game'.

A kinda stupid meme that is used mostly to annoy people, that sticks around because people have it locked into their heads that they cannot win 'The Game'. The comic turns it on its head by simply stating that you've won 'The Game', showing that the whole meme is nothing more than a mental block which can be easily demolished.

A regurgitation would be someone going 'You lost the game' and someone else going 'damn'. That is not what happened here.

2nd: The Ring and a Youtube reference.

Starts off as a typical reference to The Ring, but then twists it by essentially condemning at least 363,104 people to death because the video was disseminated through a free mass-media webservice.

A regurgitation would be someone watching the video, and then dying seven days later. That is not what happened here.

3rd: Rick Astley. Already explained.

4th: Fail

'Epic Fail' is an over-used phrase to describe a situation in which someone screws up horribly through their own stupidity. This changes the first word of the meme to something similar sounding and presents a situation where it can be used.

A regurgitation would be someone fucking up and someone else going 'Epic fail', that is not what happened here.

I'm too tired to go on at the moment, but if you can't see the point by now, you're fucking dense. You've claimed Xkcd merely regurgitates memes. I'm claimed that is doesn't, and have shown how it doesn't. Your turn to prove how it does.

Actually, it's funny because Rick Astley never intended for his song to become a meme associated with pulling a joke on someone and making them do a double-take. Do it to him, with his own song, is bringing the meme around full circle to its unintentional creator, and thus is funny.

Why yes, that is an explanation of the joke.

Which shouldn't even need to be given. You're the first person I've ever run into who both knows what a rick-roll is, but doesn't get the humour in the joke.

Erm, actually it seems to be a humourous analogy to the Ron Paul campaign, taken to absurdity with the tron references. Again, my first post on it was innaccurate.

I mean you are right that it DOES try and recontextualize the meme in a new context, but in all of those, the gag still relies on knowing that meme and laughing at it because it is a callback to that meme. Again, I really can't stand that type of humor. Again, xkcd is not trying to create its own humor, but relying upon the jokes of other people.

Well, the meme strips form, oh, at most 1/10th of the totality of Xkcd. Out of those meme strips, maybe half are wholly depended on knowing the meme to get some humour out of the joke. The rest incorporate the meme into a different joke about sex, relationships, or sarcasm. So you're essentially saying that the entire comic is shitty based off of 1/20th its content. The rest, contrary to what you claim, does 'create its own humour'.

You can argue with IS, but basically it comes down to this; He doesn't like xkcd, and therefore views everything about it in as negative a light as possible. He uses his own assertions and generalities about webcomics, combined with his negative opinion of a successful comic, to characterize the artist and creator as a sociopath.

All based on his hunches, gut feelings, and 'you know usually...'

There, I just saved you a two-hour argument.

Losonti Tokash wrote:then oni koneko damien kawaii desu gozaimasu flipping shit because xkcd was called out on its meme regurgitation

Humour is serious business.

The sad thing is I don't even like anime. I took that alias a decade ago, and kept it years after I grew out of my whole anime phase simply because practically everyone I knew online and a number of people I know offline already knew me by that name.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:You can argue with IS, but basically it comes down to this; He doesn't like xkcd, and therefore views everything about it in as negative a light as possible. He uses his own assertions and generalities about webcomics, combined with his negative opinion of a successful comic, to characterize the artist and creator as a sociopath.

All based on his hunches, gut feelings, and 'you know usually...'

There, I just saved you a two-hour argument.

Hey, I wanted a two-hour argument, goddamnit!

Okay, actually I'm stupidly wasting time because I can't seem to fall asleep yet. And I will admit, yes Xkcd does sometimes regurgitate memes. But that is a minority of the time.

I just find it hilarious that IS is trying to read so much into the deeper motivations of what is, essentially, a jokebook with stick-figures giving the jokes.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:You can argue with IS, but basically it comes down to this; He doesn't like xkcd, and therefore views everything about it in as negative a light as possible. He uses his own assertions and generalities about webcomics, combined with his negative opinion of a successful comic, to characterize the artist and creator as a sociopath.

All based on his hunches, gut feelings, and 'you know usually...'

There, I just saved you a two-hour argument.

Hey, I wanted a two-hour argument, goddamnit!

Okay, actually I'm stupidly wasting time because I can't seem to fall asleep yet. And I will admit, yes Xkcd does sometimes regurgitate memes. But that is a minority of the time.

I just find it hilarious that IS is trying to read so much into the deeper motivations of what is, essentially, a jokebook with stick-figures giving the jokes.

Its not jokes! The man has deep-seated psychological problems and is a danger to society!!!

Instant Sunrise wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Man, I remember this one really shitty webcomic called "Two Roommates and a Boyfriend"... Wonder whatever happened to it?

Yes, I did in fact used to write and draw an awful webcomic with that exact name. However, after some serious soul-searching and reflection, I realized that it was not something that I would want to read, let alone write. So I stopped making it, and then the domain expired and now points to some search portal, end of story. But thanks for the attempted character snipe.

No character snipe at all. I mean, this is a thread about shitty webcomics and that was a shitty shitty webcomic. Now, would you like some cheese to go with that bitter whine of failure?

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Its not jokes! The man has deep-seated psychological problems and is a danger to society!!!

STRAK LAZERPEW CUNTS FOR EYES YO MAMMA EPFAIL SENATORS SUCK!

Mr. Coffee wrote:Man, I remember this one really shitty webcomic called "Two Roommates and a Boyfriend"... Wonder whatever happened to it?

I made a shitty webcomic once

it was full of in-jokes that weren't even accessible to people outside this board

the art was basically a stream of consciousness thing

i did a self insertion (in a very postmodern way as this was basically a fanfic anyway)

shortly after i was too weary to continue

edit: I am finding it well difficult to find my own posts now I have changed my avatar

I find it strange that one of the complaints against Order of the Stick is that it contains more than one joke per strip. The complaints about the art and the amount of text are entirely valid, but since when is "has more jokes than just the punchline" a bad thing?

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I find it strange that one of the complaints against Order of the Stick is that it contains more than one joke per strip. The complaints about the art and the amount of text are entirely valid, but since when is "has more jokes than just the punchline" a bad thing?

It's an ideology issue, and thus best not analysed too closely. While one of his complaints against OOtS isn't wrong per se, I don't see its relevance either. OOtS still provides effective humour, it still lampoons D&D and fantasy effectively, it provides a light-hearted threadbare story, and its art an effective vehicle for all those things. Comparing it to those other comics verges on an insult, but I remain unsure if the target of said insult is OOtS or Instant Sunrise. I guess we'll see.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I find it strange that one of the complaints against Order of the Stick is that it contains more than one joke per strip. The complaints about the art and the amount of text are entirely valid, but since when is "has more jokes than just the punchline" a bad thing?

In fact, this is common. Dilbert comics almost always have the main punchline in the 2nd frame. The 3rd just takes the joke that extra bit further.

i think that xcd shit sucks

whores

Twoyboy wrote:

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I find it strange that one of the complaints against Order of the Stick is that it contains more than one joke per strip. The complaints about the art and the amount of text are entirely valid, but since when is "has more jokes than just the punchline" a bad thing?

In fact, this is common. Dilbert comics almost always have the main punchline in the 2nd frame. The 3rd just takes the joke that extra bit further.

The amusing thing is that I remember reading something by Scott Adams, where he said he occasionally has a problem with people assuming Dogbert is speaking on behalf of him about his worldview, and subsequently he would get accused of being a sociopath. I guess IS isn't the only person who does this sort of thing.

Now THIS is a fine comic! FUCK YEAH!

Bounty wrote:I didn't know Stark had a mentally deficient groupie?

oh shit i've been found out

Hell I like OOtS, and Battle for Godwins Knob from the same guy.

VF5SS wrote:this is a webcomic about toys

I gave up on shortpacked ages ago, amongst others, they just lost their appeal.
One that I do really miss though the rise and fall of Gordon Frohman

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:

That is funny.

Oh, and apparently you can site webcomics as proof and evidence in an argument now.