This comic suffers from both of the fatal flaws of comedy: Poor choice of material and terrible execution.
Perhaps the execution angle would be simpler. The joke is taking the idea of annoying banner ads and pretending they are real, the idea being no one will know they are real. OK. But the problem is this: The punchline should be concise. The idea of "a genuine banner ad" should hit you all at once, preferably in the final panel. Because that's the only source of humor (which is fine, most comics have one joke) it should be made as powerful as possible. But it's not here: The second panel makes you think of banner ads, the third panel tells you no one clicked on it, and the fourth panel...well the fourth panel just says the ad was flashing, which is either implied in "annoying banner ad" or irrelevant.
This comic could stand to be condensed to 3 or even 2 panels. "What's the car for?" "We bought it for the Xth visitor to the site but apparently he missed the notice telling him he'd won." Done. The end. As it is, the last panel could be made into the alt-text and it would work better.
Of course, the comic would still suck. Because the idea of scams being real is old. The Dreaded Forums were brimming with examples, such as this Least I Could Do or this skit from Mitchell and Webb, which just so everyone knows, is broadcast in america. My own thoughts immediately went to the Leon Sumbitches Achewood story, which is 8 strips long so make sure to keep clicking "next." All are executed differently, but there is nothing in the xkcd that isn't present in all of those as well.
I know Randy reads achewood. He has it linked from his page, and I'd hate to think that he links to comics he doesn't read just because other people like them. So I'm not going to say randy is copying other people's ideas (again), just that these ideas are pretty common and xkcd is taking the lowest of the low hanging comedy fruit. But if you think he copied the joke...well, I won't stop you.
late update: IT'S A GOOD THING I'M GOING THROUGH THE OVERCOMPENSATING ARCHIVES! because I just found this, which entirely has the joke of xkcd's alt-text contained within it. But with rhymes, colors, and recurring characters. On an unrelated note: you should read the overcompensating archives.
Perhaps the execution angle would be simpler. The joke is taking the idea of annoying banner ads and pretending they are real, the idea being no one will know they are real. OK. But the problem is this: The punchline should be concise. The idea of "a genuine banner ad" should hit you all at once, preferably in the final panel. Because that's the only source of humor (which is fine, most comics have one joke) it should be made as powerful as possible. But it's not here: The second panel makes you think of banner ads, the third panel tells you no one clicked on it, and the fourth panel...well the fourth panel just says the ad was flashing, which is either implied in "annoying banner ad" or irrelevant.
This comic could stand to be condensed to 3 or even 2 panels. "What's the car for?" "We bought it for the Xth visitor to the site but apparently he missed the notice telling him he'd won." Done. The end. As it is, the last panel could be made into the alt-text and it would work better.
Of course, the comic would still suck. Because the idea of scams being real is old. The Dreaded Forums were brimming with examples, such as this Least I Could Do or this skit from Mitchell and Webb, which just so everyone knows, is broadcast in america. My own thoughts immediately went to the Leon Sumbitches Achewood story, which is 8 strips long so make sure to keep clicking "next." All are executed differently, but there is nothing in the xkcd that isn't present in all of those as well.
I know Randy reads achewood. He has it linked from his page, and I'd hate to think that he links to comics he doesn't read just because other people like them. So I'm not going to say randy is copying other people's ideas (again), just that these ideas are pretty common and xkcd is taking the lowest of the low hanging comedy fruit. But if you think he copied the joke...well, I won't stop you.
late update: IT'S A GOOD THING I'M GOING THROUGH THE OVERCOMPENSATING ARCHIVES! because I just found this, which entirely has the joke of xkcd's alt-text contained within it. But with rhymes, colors, and recurring characters. On an unrelated note: you should read the overcompensating archives.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/01/14/
ReplyDeleteThis Irregular Webcomic one, which spawned a whole storyline, uses the same concept. Not that he copied it, of course - I'm just adding to the same-joke pile.
ReplyDelete(By the by, you forgot actually link to the Achewood story in question.)
You're not going to say Randall is copying other people's ideas, but you are going to append the label 'copied joke' to this post. Mmk.
ReplyDeletei was being oh so sarcastic. i'm terribly sorry if that was unclear.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that car will be driven on the Information Superhighway?? *raises, lowers eyebrows* Eh, eh?
ReplyDeleteOh ho, Monday's comic is a GAS, man. I mean, he's counting sheep and then it overflows! Ha ha! Get it? It's just like a signed integer variable ON A COMPUTER. Wouldn't it be cuh-ray-zee if real life worked like a computer program?
ReplyDeleteOh Randall, you slay me.
This one entertained me, and I think it worked the way it was laid out. Not the first time I've disagreed with you, but I can't help but wonder if you've fallen into a routine of disliking these comics out of habit, such that every monday, wednesday and friday you're not reading them, but rather looking for stuff you can nit-pick about.
ReplyDeleteDamo, I would agree with you, but once in a while Carl will actually like a stupendously sucky xkcd. Sometimes he'll even apologize for not fully realizing how subtly wonderful a stupid comic is until enough of the right people complain (i.e., last comic). So I have a better theory--Carl's taste just really sucks.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how can someone who claims to like dinosaur comics complain about drawing a joke out for a few panels? Doesn't Ryan North do this pretty much every single day?
ReplyDeleteOne: Randall is not constrained to a set number of panels.
ReplyDeleteTwo: Carl isn't complaining that it's drawn out so much as he's complaining that there are unnecessary panels.
Three: Much of Ryan North's humor comes from his timing and constraints, and the limitation is built into the comic. Randall, in contrast, has no real limitation. So while with Dinosaur Comics, a joke that doesn't fit the pattern isn't "oh, this could have been condensed" so much as "oh, Ryan North isn't working within his constraints." Fortunately he never fails.
Fourth: you are still my least favorite cuddlefish.
did any of you see this article in the nytimes about xkcd?
ReplyDeletebasically, munroe is writing a book.
and the article is a huge fap party for him.
Not saying that this was a funny comic, but your suggestions to "improve" it would be even worse. The punchline isn't that the real notice is mistaken for a false one. The punchline is that it doesn't even cross these guys' mind that it would be mistaken for one.
ReplyDeletePlus it's ironic that you complain of two supposed extra panels, when you bring up examples of comics that stretched the joke to a week or more.
That NY Times article...more power to Randall, but I could've done without the author pretending to dance on the grave of print material.
ReplyDeleteIn the photograph he looks disappointingly human.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the remains of any of the babies he routinely dismembers and eats.
WHAT HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN DOING
I liked the fourth panel. I thought the pathetic "it was flashing and everything!" of the salesman was quite amusing, in a sort of railing-against-the-world way. Understatement and stuff.
Oh, the whole "it's ok if your comic fails as long as the failure is built into the structure of the comic" argument--as if this xkcd would be better if only every other comic Randall had drawn was also four paneled. The reason Ryan has a 6-paneled comic is because he likes drawing comics without punchlines, with jokes building upon each other in a structure not unlike this xkcd. If that setup is useful to him, you should be able to appreciate its use in other places.
ReplyDeleteIf it helps I've been disappointed with Dinosaur comics too for the past few weeks.
ReplyDeleteI read the non-driving character as being sarcastic in this one - perhaps I was wrong? Still don't like it...
I didn't say "it's okay," I said it's different. If you go to watch the movie 300, you don't complain about the lack of political intrigue. There are plenty of valid complaints to make, but lack of political intrigue is pretty much built into the concept.
ReplyDeleteCompare this with a movie that could have had more political intrigue--a spy movie, for instance--but opted against. It's legitimate to expect a level of intrigue in a spy movie, and it failed to deliver.
But really, you can't complain that a comic which is always the same should have dropped panels. Or more broadly, if a comic always follows the three-panel format, you don't say "meh, this should have been two panels." But when the panels are completely variable you can say "okay, drop panels X and Y and you have a good comic."
Oh, re the NYT article:
ReplyDeleteFUCK YOU, RANDALL MUNROE AND THE NEW YORK TIMES.
This is just the NYT continuing its desperate bid to seem new and interesting and cool by writing about one of these hip internet people writing books, and saying 'ha ha, guys, see, we know that The Death Of Print is coming also, that is why we are SO DESPERATE FOR INTERNET LOVE.'
FUCK YOU. FUCK YOOOOOOU.
I emailed a link to Gawker's story about the NYT article to Carl last night but now I re-read it, I realize: this isn't actually newsworthy, at all. Most webcomic artists have done books of their stuff. Dinosaur Comics, Penny-Arcade, Scary-Go-Round, Octopus Pie, A Softer World, just off the top of my head. It's a pretty standard model! Hell, I'm considering finding some awesome DIY people and making a book of my blog, and I have like twenty readers.
Usually they either self-print or work with small companies. Randy is neither the most famous nor the best among these--so why does he merit an NYT article about his book? THIS IS WHY JOURNALISM IS DYING, NYT. YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, EVER. FUCK YOU. FUCK. YOU. FUCK YOU FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCK FUCK FUCKFUCKFUCk FUCKG FCUKCUFCKFUKCUNLAKSNflskfas;fasa
You forgot fuck.
ReplyDeleteDid I? I was pretty sure I mentioned it. Well, just to be safe:
ReplyDeleteFUCK.
I thought New Car was terrible and am surprised that so many people don't hate it.
ReplyDeleteAnd the latest one is possibly even worse. Another non-joke that people will love because they understand it, which is basically xkcd's bread and butter at this point.
For some reason, the timing here worked out perfectly for me. The second panel is just oblique enough, and it's been so long since I thought about flash ads (AdBlock is nice, selective blindness is sometimes even better) that it took me one beat past the fourth panel for the whole joke to click. Which meant that the movement from the fourth panel ("flashing and everything") into the alt-text was also perfectly paced. I mean, the alt text isn't wildly original, but it's a nice image and extends the comically frustrated tone of the last panel.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I make no promises to someone attempting a critical reading. Very different sequences of awareness, no doubt.
I was the same way, Pat.
ReplyDeleteI don't usually find xkcd funny, but in this case, it wasn't too bad. You're analyzing it too closely, can't see the forest for the trees as it were.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed the abject shock that the characters expressed when no one clicked their flashing sign, which seems even more ridiculous since I go out of my way to avoid blinking things. And the wording, especially "bizarre" was jokes.
This would have been mildly funny about oh, FIVE YEARS AGO. As it is, I'm half expecting him to reference that dancing hamster flash, or whatever it was.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is old news now. We're a little more used to it, Randall.
HAMPSTERDANCE
ReplyDeletejay do you want to do a guest week in a few weeks? Send me an e-mail if so. If anyone else is interested you can e-mail me too.
ReplyDeleteCaptcha: Subray - as in, "this comic was subray, or, it was subpar compared to a similar comic featuring Ray Smuckles"
I think now is an ideal time to suggest to everyone that they start using the word "linksys" as an adjective, to describe something which is inferior. Examples:
ReplyDelete"Man, the latest XKCD was really linksys." "Though I liked it at first, I thought 300 was kind of linksys in retrospect." "You can't come on Friday? That's pretty linksys."
BLACK IS THE NEW BLACK
This blog is so linksys.
ReplyDeleteAwesome, thanks for clarifying that M+W is available in America. I'm surprised, British and American humour is usually so incompatible.
ReplyDeleteWorried about this book proposal of Randall's, it could either be his moment of glory or it'll be his jump the shark moment.
I have revised my opinion from last time: only the first episode of M+W series two sucked; the others were probably OK, ish. Even if none of them had the brilliant Four Inquisitions sketch in.
ReplyDelete(if my HTML is not well-formed I will look like such a dolt)
Dan, you act like he hasn't already jumped 20 sharks end-to-end while on a motorcycle with a GODDAMN CROSSBOW.
ReplyDeleteSee, it doesn't intensify it much to add 'on a motorcycle', because that's actually less gimmicky than doing it on waterskis (as should be the image conjured up in any decent person's mind by the phrase "jumping the shark").
ReplyDeleteOoh, I would love to do a guest week. I'll send you an email when I'm not so braindead.
ReplyDeletesweet. Everyone else: GET EXCITED
ReplyDeleteNormally you're criticisms make more sense than this one. You didn't even try. The things you said would make the comic better would only make it worse. You also missed the funny part of the comic.
ReplyDeleteMay I point out how old and overused someone creating a blog to attack a popular phenomenon is?
I'm sorry, for posting on such an old thread, but I expected this to be one of those comics you actually liked. I think you're forgetting to look for the good in comics now.
oh. my. god. its a fucking webcomic. Get over yourself. You say in your introduction that this is you giving this guy an iron finger of mockery, when really you're just nit picking at superficial flaws, and making silly and obscure references to computers, girls and the like. so what if his new comics aren't as 'good' as the old ones.
ReplyDeletehe never asked for you to read his comic, or for anyone to read it. people can read it if they want and like it if they want. and if they don't then fine. I just can't wrap my head around people seathing with anger and frustration that other people, god forbid, think something is funny. Calm down. Its okay. Its a website. You don't have to read it. I swear.
So, basically, whether you like XKCD or not, who gives a shit? It's a webcomic. It's like critiquing the form and content of, well, a blog ranting about how bad a webcomic is.
"he never asked for you to read his blog, or for anyone to read it. people can read it if they want and like it if they want. and if they don't then fine. I just can't wrap my head around people seathing with anger and frustration that other people, god forbid, think something is not funny. Calm down. Its okay. Its a website. You don't have to read it. I swear."
ReplyDeleteFixed that for you.
Rob you are the editor that every Cuddlefish needs
ReplyDeletecaptcha: areba. you should shout this every time you post a comment. ARRRRRRRREEEEEEEEBA!