Monday, March 22, 2010

Comic 717: Inspector Hilarious

Hey dummies, it's person #1 here guest postin' about a certain webcomic we all know about. First and foremost, I would like to mention that rob is a huge fatass and carl is a meanie. Now that I have insulted y'all, let's get to the comic.

xkcd is hilarious

Funny story, actually. Quite recently I told a friend of mine how and why xkcd was going downhill and how it was white-knight-esque pseudo-feminist. That was one day before he came out with 714. I was so happy the moment I read that strip, because of the i-told-you-so routine that was coming my friend's way soon. He ended up greeting me with "Damnit, person. You might be right." that day. Great fun.
Anyway, the reason I am telling this story is that today he was actually the one that lead me to read the strip when I did. He MSN'd me today saying "Son of a bitch", "Why must you ruin things for me.". I like to imagine he put a period instead of a question mark because he knows how much I like making people, specifically him, suffer. He also thought the author of xkcd was named "Rupert Murdock", which is actually kind of a badass name.

But my actual point was that keeping these words in mind, I went to the comic. It's hard not to be biased when you're writing a hate blog, it's even harder if your friend tells you something is shit ahead of time - but it's not even that. I looked at the comic. I read it, went back to him, said "I don't get it", went back to the comic, read it again, and asked him "wait, is this actually the joke? Inspector Gadget has a lot of crazy shit 'under his belt'? That's it? That was a joke in the show too, Randall just made it dirty". Ok that may be paraphrased to insert that hilarious pun.
But yes, that is it, my friend confusedly reassured me. Huh. Well. That's not funny.

I'm going to go more in-depth on the actual joke, but I wanna talk about something else first

Visuals

That doesn't really look like inspector gadget. a big part about inspector gadget was not only his goofy behaviour, but also his looks. Notice that if you take away the face and the hair, you aren't left with much of his original personality or charme. Could randall possibly have picked a more retarded choice in terms of his comic gimmick? The point of a comic is that you don't spell everything out, you show it. Your characters not having faces does not make this easier. Randall did kind of a good job at making him look around and showing that no one is there, but only considering the arbitrary restriction he set himself.

visuals 2

The point of that is not to prove that I'm a shitty artist, my point is that faces bring a whole new atmosphere to the comic, and allow randall to express himself better. But since you will all just bitch at me that this is his style (this is a criticism of exactly that, by the way - his style) and that it's just something I have to accept, let's move on.
I'm not done with the art, though. Why is he shown so far away in the last two panels? There's no walls, no anything. It makes you think he shrinked. Randall, we're not asking you to draw us an oil panting in the background of your comics, but please, at least draw a line that shows us that your characters are not constantly in limbo. Also, I get that you want to show that he's alone, but too small. You have to realize that since you've drawn nothing, the borders of the panel are the first possible boundary of the room. What this means is that Gadget is standing in a hugeass room (both in height and width). The fact that it is empty is usually not a big deal since your stick figures are closeup, and their surroundings are unimportant - in this part however it plays a big role since the idea is that inspector gadget is all alone, but alive. You're getting one of these points accross.
ALSO, what's up with his arms not being down? That's weird, man. He probably realized he drew him too small to pull that off. So that makes it two points for bigger inspector.

visuals 3

Doesn't that look far less distracting and better than xkcd's version? Yes it does, shut up. Where's YOUR criticism of xkcd? What gives YOU the right to criticize my criticism?

Well, that leaves one thing. The humor. Sigh. Here's the thing, Inspector gadget was meant to be entertaining, and the fact that he had whatever the fuck seemed convenient in his hat was a joke of the show. What randall did was essentially a conversation I imagine some high schoolers are having somewhere right now. "Dude! What if Inspector Gadget had like naked chicks in his hat so he can look at them whenever he wants" "THAT IS AWESOME! HIGH FIVE! I wish I had naked chicks in my hat, man. Inspector Gadget ROCKS". We've established that it's a joke of the show, so what did Randall do? He took something that didn't belong (as it was a children's show) and mixed it with an unfitting concept. Actually, it's not like he showed an emo kid taking care of orphans, he just took something innocent and made it dirty. Rule 34, basically. Except it's not really very imaginative or funny. Hell, even if we completely ignore the bluntness of the joke, he still just showed a dude talking. It's not he even made an effort to at least surprise the reader through action (Maybe by inspector gadget pulling a dildo out of his hat or some shit. It still wouldn't be funny, but it'd at least be a little more creative than just saying something stupid.)

And then we have the alt text. A 2girls1cup joke? Really? Again? Actually, not joke. Just reference. The difference is that he thinks he can get away with just mentioning something, instead of deriving humor from it. LAME.

But enough about the comic, let's see what the forumites have to say

"go go gadget decaying comic"

"...Well congratulations, you've made Inspector Gadget unfunny and disturbing. I didn't even think that was possible. Go go gadget anti-comic!

It's like anti-hero, you see, except not at all interesting. And gone gone gadget repetitive lame joke intro phrase."

This, basically. While half of the forumites thought it would be hilarious to just say "go go gadget" and then a vague reference to the comic or anything really (implicitly giving randall credit for saying something unusual after go go gadget), a lot of them were also disappointed with the comic. Understandable.
"Just gonna say, xkcd been going downhill recently. Maybe it's just me, but it has a really different feel to it..."

"Point of order: "Lesbians doing it" is an event or possibly fantasy, not a "gadget."

A video camera and cup would be a pair of gadgets, but I don't think they ever appeared in the cartoon. (Binoculars may come in handy if his legs go off instead)."

This guy is funnier than the comic. That's really not saying much, though.
"Funny comic, awful (but predictable) mouseover."

I'm slightly uneasy about both the fact that he liked the comic and that he PREDICTED a 2girls1cup joke at the mere mention of lesbian sex. Poor guy.
"Go go gadget people getting butthurt over a difference of opinion on what is/isn't funny"

I like how this guy calls a bunch of people who just said they didn't like the comic or that xkcd was getting worse butthurt, because he was getting "butthurt" over a bunch of people not liking his awesome favorite webcomic. I'm guessing he doesn't know about this site.

143 comments:

  1. STFU or I will edit your post to say how much you love dogwangs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. More tragicomic stuff from the forums:
    "ALSO YOU GUYS:, it's ALWAYS funny to reference any (children's) cartoon character in combination with sex."

    "This comic was really, really, REALLY stupid.

    I love it."

    ReplyDelete
  3. aloria - I was addressing myself to get that out of the way. Nice self-confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This was a pretty terrible comic, but I think it'd be even worse with your proposed zoom in the two last panels.

    Zooming out to my mind illustrates that after looking around in the second panel, Mr. Gadget has found that he is alone; we can see a larger area around him and there's no one there. Somehow illustrating this is necessary for the comic to be coherent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Person #1, let's be clear. I thought the comic sucked.

    Let's also be clear about something else:
    You completely misinterpreted the joke.
    The joke is not that Inspector Gadget has lesbians in his hat. It's that anything he prefaces with "Go go gadget" seems to appear from under his hat, as if magically. He says "Go go gadget lesbians doing it" not because he has lesbians "doing it" under his hat, but instead because he is furtively hoping that if he "go go gadget"s them, they will appear. That's why the comic's called furtive; it's Inspector Gadget hoping he has lesbians under his hat. The joke is that his hat might work like that: Anything he announces appears magically under it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know that, dipshit. It's the same thing, though. It's semantics, a matter of how you phrase it. Obviously he doesn't actually have lesbians under his hat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. also 5:25 - the idea is not to not zoom out, the idea is not zoom out so much.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That line "Doesn't that look far less distracting and better than xkcd's version? Yes it does, shut up. Where's YOUR criticism of xkcd? What gives YOU the right to criticize my criticism?" reminds me a lot of Maddox. It's okay, it's really funny :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part of the "go go gadget" gags in Inspector Gadget was that it wouldn't go according to plan. The mallet was a common choice in the show, a pair of scissors would also be a possibility.

    The alt-text was too wordy. It could be improved, while still keeping the same joke, by just keeping the bit about the cup. Maybe the cup should've been part of the visual gag? In either case, a simple "Yowzaa" would also work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like that you at least included the alt-text in your analysis Person#1. I was starting to get worried there that you kept going on and on about the strip that, as you said, had very little going on in it. xkcdexplained left it out entirely which is a huge mistake here. The thing is, like you said, there is no joke in the comic. The whole comic then appears to be a set-up for the joke in the alt text. A really, horrible, unfunny, slightly disturbing, moderately confusing, juvenile setup for a horrible, unfunny, moderately disturbing, tired reference joke. I don't think Randal intended the strip itself to be anything more than that, and it certainly isn't regardless of what he thought he was doing, so criticizing it for lack of humor is kind of pointless.

    I can kinda see how the Inspector Gadget 2girls1cup concept might be kind of funny with him gadgeting out the equipment... maybe. But the setup was absolutely horrible, and confusing, and it doesn't quite make sense, and it's so annoyingly juvenile. I can't even enjoy making juvinile sex jokes anymore because xkcd does it so horribly that I'm constantly paralyzed with fear that people will think I'm as lame as Randal if I crack a little sex joke (I mean, we're talking about reducing the quality of my life here. Possibly at the expense of increase the quality of everyone else's life but fuck them anyway. If randal stops making really lame juvinile sex jokes there's enough room in the universe for me to make moderately lame juvinile sex jokes without fear of having my eyes stabbed out). I really think Randal just runs with ideas for jokes even if he can't figure out how to make them funny with proper setups and pacing and making sure they actually make sense. You know, stuff that comedians do to turn abstract ideas about things that are kinda weird into jokes.

    @Person#2 Are you saying that Randal is also so stupid that he mixed up the order of the last two panels? I would totally buy your explanation if the last two panels were reversed in order. You would have to zoom out AFTER he said that to demonstrate that he he was just pathetically hoping that he could bring himself the pleasure of watching two lesbians doing it simply by calling it out and had failed. That would indeed be a joke. Not a good one, but a joke in line with xkcd norms. Also you would have to redefine the word "furtive" to mean what you just said it means instead of what it actually means for that to make sense. Either you're an idiot who can't use a dictionary reading things into the comic, or Randal is also an idiot who can't use a dictionary and is also so dumb that he screwed up the order of his frames, or both. If we changed the name of the 717 to something like "hoping" or "please let this work" (just off the top of my head, you could probably do better with the same concept) and switched the order of the last two frames you'd have a point. But they're not and you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have been looking forward to seeing this one get torn to pieces since I saw this travesty of a comic earlier today. Good work. Even though you simply added a few lines to the face, it was 100% more clear that this was Inspector Gadget in the first two completely unnecessary panels. In fact, this could have been a great one-panel strip. To add the icing on the cake, it should have been worded "two girls doing it", since that would make them, inherently, lesbians. Saying "two lesbians doing it" sounds like something a middle-schooler would say while adjusting his 1-inch thick glasses, followed by a snorty chuckle.

    Since I'm a first time commenter here (and former xkcd fanatic) I'll also add that I love the blog here, big time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. err, as much as adding a face and hair to the Inspector was a good idea, now he looks like Jay Sherman (everyone remembers The Critic, right?) I mean yes it's better than nothing, but if we really wanted to have a stick figure look like Inspector Gadget, we should just give him the long face he had, add the hair and that facial expression and it really does look like him

    ReplyDelete
  13. So guys who here really loved John Lovitz's role as Bart Bookman in Southland Tales?

    Him, Dwayne Johnson, and...well, really just him and Dwayne Johnson. They were extremely entertaining.

    OH! And Wallace Shawn.

    The first hour or so of that movie is deliriously, retardedly fun. Then it sort of slows down and increases in pompousness.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maletooth, you're NOT a comedy genius! Winnie the Pooh has a FACE! You're totally not as awesome as Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scary thought: how many people have went to Randalize the Inspector Gadget entry on Wikipedia?

    Too scared to see.

    Captcha: simer. Simer down, you lickin' too hot, so!

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1156/whatf.png

    ReplyDelete
  17. Honestly? Until I read the last panel I thought it was supposed to be Rorschach.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And I see I wasn't the only one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To be honest I don't like it when people make criticisms like the one I'm about to make because it's not really a valid reaction to "is this a good comic or not?"; it's just small-minded nitpicky whinging.

    But...

    Stickfigures.

    Clothes.


    Bluhh???


    Let's take Inspector Gadgets coat: unless you draw horizontal-to-the-floor stick-shoulders, coats just don't work. They can't.

    Or belts, how come the belt seems to be wrapped around something solid if his body is only one-dimensional? Or well just look at how dorky his hands look poking out of the sleeves.


    The other thing is, drawing clothes on stick figures in the name of characterisation carries with it the implication that all the non-celebrity stick figures are running around in the nip. If you want a recognisable person, just drop the usual style and draw them properly. Because stick figures & clothes is weird. I don't like it.



    - - - -


    I think you could make a pretty funny (albeit probably short-lived, but hey) comic based around the various complications and contradictions involved with being a stick figure.
    Like how they can't digest food, or they can't tell what way they're facing, or how pointing at something is the same action for them as punching. Stuff like that. You'd run out of material pretty soon but...hmm actually maybe it wouldn't be all that funny...

    Ho well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Fernie:

    Oddly, no edits to the Inspector Gadget article that are related to xkcd. Two edits were made the day before this comic went up though, one that deleted the entire page and replaced it with "go go gadget robopenis!" and another edit that deleted the entire page and replaced it with an ASCII penis.

    ReplyDelete
  21. i'm a huge xkcd detractor. usually agree with most of the posts in this blog. xkcd sucks, a lot.

    but this comic made me laugh - not out loud of course (i mean it's still xkcd after all), but to myself. for some reason i found it pretty damn funny, perhaps because of the stark lack of artwork and very to-the-point punchline. so yeah, i liked this one.

    maybe i need to lie down.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rupert Murdoch is an Australian-American media mogul. He is the founder, a major shareholder, chairman and managing director of News Corporation (News Corp).

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like the idea that Inspector Gadget goes out into the middle of nowhere to watch porn. It seems like his logic to go into a wide open space rather than a bedroom or something.

    Thing is, both that and the hat/coat combo are limitations of stick figure drawing. You'd think Randall would figure out the limitations and not write jokes that require detailed art.

    As for the joke, it really is just "haha, kids' cartoons have sex". It's not unfunny, but it's been made before.

    (Note: References are not jokes in and of themselves. Notable people who think otherwise are Seltzer/Friedberg. Not sure why the guy who thinks Monty Python quotes are sad doesn't get this, but whatever.)

    Oh, and I love how Randall can go from "in my porn, people fuck" pseudofeminism to almost literal objectification of lesbians. Wonder what the feminists have to say about this one. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is one of the few xkcd comics I agree are truly horrible. I've been refreshing this page since it came out to see you rip it to pieces. I take issue with your criticism of the artwork, however; I found it quite refreshing to see Randall draw something more than a stick-figure.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No. Fuck that. It is not impressive or refreshing to see Randall go from drawing shitty ultra-minimalist stick figures to very slightly more detailed stick figures.

    Look at Bill Watterson or Nicholas Gurewitch or John Cullen Murphy or even fucking Mike Krahulik.

    Today, instead of just drawing a crudely-rendered stick figure, Randall went the extra mile and drew a crudely-rendered stick figure wearing a crudely-rendered trenchcoat and hat. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Keep, you should read flatland.

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://www.screwyoulauren.com/index.php?c=viral&m=index&id=3e8db9b28d6d18899235e19de4017366

    ReplyDelete
  28. yes. just click it. i'm like halfway to the video.

    ReplyDelete
  29. god damn it, Carl, give me comment editing privileges so I can delete this fucking spam

    ReplyDelete
  30. i'll delete your spam ;)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your life must be so sad :(

    Why do you enjoy not enjoying something? Wouldn't you prefer to spend your time finding something you enjoy rather than criticizing something you don't enjoy?

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is the first comic I've read that I didn't understand until this explanation. Even then I had to search the year this cartoon aired. Randal is referencing a cartoon that my son watched.

    Randal's youth is showing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. First, referencing some criticism already posted...

    "Oh, and I love how Randall can go from "in my porn, people fuck" pseudofeminism to almost literal objectification of lesbians. Wonder what the feminists have to say about this one. LOL."

    Yep. Pretty old news, though, the fact that Randall can't make up his mind on his ideological stances. Pretty "Munroenic".

    "Stickfigures.

    Clothes."

    Keep, I made this same point back at that Halloween/Back to the Future comic. The whole implications of having your comic art done in stick figures should be contemplated further, but Randall just won't do that. If he does, he'll get caught on a lot of complications and may likely be forced to actually draw things, and he'd never want that. Nope, better just ignore that and cash in on the usual loyal blind fans. Yay, meritocracy!

    "err, as much as adding a face and hair to the Inspector was a good idea, now he looks like Jay Sherman (everyone remembers The Critic, right?) I mean yes it's better than nothing, but if we really wanted to have a stick figure look like Inspector Gadget, we should just give him the long face he had, add the hair and that facial expression and it really does look like him"

    Cam, that's what RANDALL should have done. Person did enough just by illustrating the concept, the rest is pretty much implicit -- and pretty much impossible, since we know Randall refuses to do anything that adds effort to his comics, like elongating his stick figures' heads so they look more like the character they're supposed to represent.

    Malethoth, I think I saw "2 bears 1 cup" before. In a CRACKED Photoshop Contest, no less. *shudder*

    All in all, good job, Person #1, a good and long post like I was missing around. Maybe you should kill Carl and replace him here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. what if he already has

    ReplyDelete
  35. the joke requires some further thinking and imagination - which you obviously lack. sucks to be you

    ReplyDelete
  36. funny, the more I think about it and the more I try to imagine situations where this might be funny the less funny it gets

    ReplyDelete
  37. that's because you are a fucking retard.
    as stated before: sucks to be you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. a quality I share with all the xkcd fanboys, apparently

    ReplyDelete
  39. if you approach this comic with the idea that every XKCD must be funny, and therefore when it's not, you make up a reason for it to be funny, then yeah I guess you'd think it'd funny.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's true, if you have a good enough imagination, you don't even need a joke! You can just sit there and think of funny things.

    That's what I've started doing, actually. Every time there's an XKCD I just imagine instead that it's an episode of Red Dwarf. XKCD is my favorite comic again!

    ReplyDelete
  41. get some sleep, your brain seems to need it. and so does your face.

    Captcha: "Rob is a pathetic fucktard who thinks he's a writer, hahaha.". True story.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Man, trolls these days have no subtlety at all.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "subtlety" is just a code word for COMMUNISM and FASCISM. DON'T LET YOURSELF BE TAKEN IN, AMERICA

    ReplyDelete
  44. I thought it was better that he wasn't instantly identifiable as Inspector G in the first two panels, because then the last panel acted as a reveal. In other words, he used his so-called substandard art to add to the effectiveness of the punch line.

    I don't like the lazy lesbian reference though. It would have been better to choose some other embarassing item, like "Go go gadget nose hair remover".

    ReplyDelete
  45. Minimalistic art style is no excuse for being lazy. I thought it detracted from this particular comic because, the more I look at the stick figure in the trenchcoat, the more it looks like Rorschach or some flasher pervert, and the less it looks like Inspector Gadget, simply because, as has already been stated, Gadget ACTUALLY HAS A FACE.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Simon:
    "Why do you enjoy not enjoying something? Wouldn't you prefer to spend your time finding something you enjoy rather than criticizing something you don't enjoy?"

    You just answered your second question with your first. Good game.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Unrelated to the comic, but I kept noticing an inordinate number of people using the word Jehova on the XKCD forums. I thought at first that it was some sort of weird meme there but then I realized that the word God is censored to Jehova when you post. Any idea why this is?

    ReplyDelete
  48. About 75 comics back or so xkcd got even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Two theories: one, Randall (or some other admin on the forums) is an idiot and thinks he's being sensitive to Christians etc. by censoring a word they often take offense to. This would work better if it weren't more likely to piss them off.

    Two, Randall or some other admin on the forums thinks he's making a hilarious point against Christians etc. who complain about the use of the word 'God' as a vulgarity by changing it to something that's likely to really piss them off.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Apparently it is part of some sort of forum "game" for this week.

    http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58039

    The word computer also becomes Porn storage aparatus or something like that. I think internet becomes blagotube.

    Essentially, just another dumb xkcd thing.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Strikes me as annoyingly PRO-Christan/Jew. There are other gods out there besides the judeo-christian one; changing all instances of 'god' to 'Jehova' forces it to be all about Captain Jeebus.

    ReplyDelete
  52. No Christian would ever do that, though. Like, there are plenty of Christians out there who don't mind people saying 'god' as a vulgarity, because God is not actually the name of God and the commandment goes 'thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain' or whatever.

    Jehovah actually being the name of God, this is basically a deliberate violation of the second or third commandment (depending on your particular orthodoxy). If it is pro-Christian then it was done by someone who has never actually interacted with Christians. It reads like it's mostly supposed to piss off Christians to me.

    ReplyDelete
  53. BUT IN THE LATIN ALPHABET, JEHOVAH STARTS WITH AN 'i'!!!!!

    O_o

    ReplyDelete
  54. I guess it's their forum and they can do what they like but saying "nobody is allowed to complain about it" is kind of a dick move.

    Also apparently "mod" filters to "god".

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Strikes me as annoyingly PRO-Christan/Jew. There are other gods out there besides the judeo-christian one; changing all instances of 'god' to 'Jehova' forces it to be all about Captain Jeebus."

    It's not even how the Jews say or spell it in a roman alphabet.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "OK, that's three. Complainers, whingers and absurdly indignant killjoy assclowns are now subject to bannination for the duration of Mod Madness without further warning at my discretion. My whim, actually. Especially if the complaint appears in this thread where I am really really likely to see it. I don't care about annoying people with word filters this week. I understand and accept that some of you find it annoying. And I don't care. Shut up and let the mod staff have some fun for a few days."

    how dare somebody have an opinion (mind you I have neve been particularly fond of the xkcd forum admin team)

    ReplyDelete
  57. They should have just made it ×™ְ×”ֹוָ×”

    ReplyDelete
  58. aloria you are my favorite person.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "how dare somebody have an opinion (mind you I have neve been particularly fond of the xkcd forum admin team)"

    It's pretty common to communities like the XKCD forums: the admins essentially feel that it's your privilege to be there, so anyone who doesn't cater to their whims is banned. This belief pervades every level of the forum's culture, so the forum members also viciously attack people who deviate from forum norms.

    ReplyDelete
  60. my little brother just told me that "The_P"'s avatar is some guy from pokemon - what the fuck? How old are you??!

    On a side note: Giving a shit about what other people think and attacking them? .. kinda reminds me of this blog. Don't be hypocritical, Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Fuck, seriously? A moderator on a forum posted that? It's okay to enjoy yourself as a mod, but you should never appear capricious or malicious in your moderating. It's the best way to kill a community. Whoever posted that should get their head out of their ass.

    ReplyDelete
  62. yes, I am definitely being hypocritical by describing a common tendency in tight-knit forum communities like XKCD. this blog has a super tight-knit community and isn't basically thread after thread of endless flame wars over shit that doesn't matter at all

    ReplyDelete
  63. It essentially reads to be like:

    "Hey, we've decided to act like immature fucktards for a week. Intelligent discourse on whether or not this is a good idea is impossible, as that would be inconsistent with the tenets of immature fucktardery. In order to maintain consistency with the tone of the week, we will throw a temper tantrum and abuse our power if anyone disagrees with us or calls us out on our immature fucktarded behavior."

    ReplyDelete
  64. ..sounds like tons of fun!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Even I'm not that bad, and when I do any kind of administrative action in the channel, people just scream at me until I stop and reverse it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. hehe, oh those banhammer days were funny

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anon 7:52 - specifically, it's an edited picture of a guy from Pokemon. Your implicit age-related insult is retarded and you are most likely a tremendous faggot.

    aloria, I can't drink because I am at work right now but I'll start as soon as I get home.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Just wondering, has anyone taken XKCD's colour name survey?

    http://aram.xkcd.com/color/

    ReplyDelete
  69. I used to go to GameFAQs until I got banned for ridiculously minor infractions. Specifically, I insulted people non-stop for about six weeks, and was punished with a serious of mild but escalating restrictions on my ability to post. When I continued to relentlessly insult people, I was banned.

    Fascists.

    You know, it's funny, people on GameFAQs do complain a lot about how arbitrary its moderators are, but I think it's one of the sites with the very least capricious moderating body. Especially if you compare GameFAQs to any amateur forum, such as a webcomic's. The main issue is just that there's a couple hundred mods on GameFAQs dealing with a couple million registered users. Admittedly, only a few thousand of them are active at any given time, but it's not like every moderator is constantly alert either.

    There's actually a pretty well-spelled-out body of rules for when you'll get moderated, and the policy of how punishments is determined is pretty easy to figure out and pretty consistently-applied. They don't radically change what's bannable on a whim.

    Hey wait none of you guys care at all about this stuff. :(

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think someone, maybe rob, needs to write a blog post about this, just so we can piss them off.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I have NO problem with the drawings on the subject comic, although I agree the too-tiny last panels were ill-advised. The coat and hat were quickly explained by the go-go text, the combination of stick figure and drawn coat is not an issue for me, and the look-around swivel was clear.

    The problem is the comic is utterly witless and illogical, even or especially in the context of the literally cartoonish Inspector Gadget. Lesbians will appear as gadgets, presumably protruding or emanating from him? This is funny? No. This is stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @The_P: Hey, thank you for the explanation on your avatar, that made it cool again!! ..Well, no, in fact it's still gay and so are you. Have a nice day, moron.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. person #1, please don't encourage rob to write another post on a stupid subject. in the end he's gonna think he's actually good at it!

    ReplyDelete
  74. too late he's already written an 85-page dissertation on it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. oh fake Keep. you're so compelling!

    you do know that people complaining about these posts is the biggest reason I'm still writing them, right?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rob, it's Emily. I really don't know how to tell you this, but I just found this site and it's really changed how I see you as a person. I don't think we can go on like this with me knowing what a sanctimonious prick you are. I'm leaving you Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  77. rob:
    all i know is that you're full of shit.
    and btw: you do know that it's a great pleasure for me when you waste hours and hours of your precious life on those fruitless and uninspired rants and comments on this blog, right?
    and please spare us your phony shit about how little time this actually takes, because like i said before: you're full of shit.
    thank you and goodbye

    ReplyDelete
  78. it's cool, I could never date a girl who doesn't know how to use "sanctimonious" correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Emily, it's Dad. I told you to leave that poor kid Rob alone. Do you want to go back to the hospital again? Now get off the damned computer and do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  80. fake Keep: as always, I'm flattered that you think it must take me hours to put the posts together--so, again, thank you--but I really am incredibly fucking lazy and I've got better shit to do.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This is by far the absolute worst criticism of xkcd I've ever read. xkcdsucks is seriously going downhill. Yes this comic sucks, but your critique is like somebody vomited words on a page and called it criticism. Its just one long ramble making very few good points.

    You keep going on about the art. Yeah we get it, xkcd has shitty art. But that's been the critique in the last 50 posts.

    Seriously get some better writers, cause this drivel sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "xkcdsucks is seriously going downhill."

    this isn't even written by carl what

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Jehovah actually being the name of God"

    Nope. God's name in Hebrew without vowels is YHWH. When vowels were added, rather than take God's name in vain, the vowels of Adonai (lord) were placed between the letters. Represented in English by LORD instead of just Lord.

    When the Bible was translated out of Hebrew, the translator failed to realize that it was two words inter-spliced, and thought that Yahowah was God's name. Except, this was a German translator, so Jehovah.

    On top of that, Jehovah's witnesses must have forgotten that the word is German, so they took to pronouncing a j and v instead of y and w.

    It is in fact the gross mistake at God's name that should offend Jews and Christians. Or they could get a sense of humor.

    (Sorry, wild divergence, but this bit of trivia is one I find particularly interesting.)


    Incidentally, even though Inspector Gadget is a buffoon, he should at LEAST be adult enough to say "having sex".

    ReplyDelete
  84. This is by far the absolute worst criticism of xkcdsucks I've ever read. Anonymous article bashing is seriously going downhill. Yes this article sucks, but your critique is like somebody vomited words on a page and called it criticism. Its just one long ramble making very few good points.

    You keep going on about people going on about the art. Yeah we get that you get that xkcd has shitty art. But that's been the critique in the last 50 comments.

    Seriously get some better commenters, cause this drivel sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Anon 12:34
    Aaand we've now gone meta. cool.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I love the whole "god's name" thing. It's so full of intricate rules. I had no idea they had actually spliced together words to keep from offending him. That's so... I'm sure there's a proper medical term for it, but it sounds like god, and the people talking about him, suffer from a cross of autism and ocd. It's very reminiscent of coming up with rules about which tiles to walk on.

    ReplyDelete
  87. If you don't like my post, don't read it

    ReplyDelete
  88. Uh, El Dude, have you HEARD about the kosher laws?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Great criticism, but I would appreciate it if you didn't start off with 'hey dummies.' On what grounds do you call us dumb?

    ReplyDelete
  90. The grounds that you're dumb?

    OOHH SICK BURN
    THIS IS WHAT YOU GET

    THIS IS WHAT YOU GET

    ReplyDelete
  91. I am drinking a drink called a "red pussy" it is good but also very embarassing

    ReplyDelete
  92. Following both the xkcdsucks and xkcd comic threads, I've almost noticed a blending of the two. It seems like more and more Anons come here to (when not choking on their own drool) try to troll this blog. Meanwhile, looking over at the XKCD individual comic threads for the truly terrible comics (like this inspector gadget piece of shit), it seems like it's in equal measure people calling in to say the comic sucks while the other half is the remnants of the diehard circle-jerkers.
    Looks like xkcd's falling popularity is... well, falling faster.

    Maybe I'm just being optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Ok people, feel free to flame me for throwing in something so completely off-topic and possibly old news, but is this who I think it is?

    http://www.sorryeverybody.com/2008/index.php?pwd=&index=25

    It might be my google skills but I don't think it's been mentioned anywhere online.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I seem to remember him mentioning that site in his blog a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Lol Alsworth said "minimalistic art style is no excuse for being lazy." Isn't that the same thing Carl does? With all the one liner posts that are supposed to be funny because it's one line??

    Why do you guys praise dinosaur comics so much, when your criticizing xkcd's "art?" I mean, dc is just the same every fucking day.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I wonder why Rorschach is talking about gadgets and lesbians in this comic?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ryan North is anything but lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Why do you guys praise dinosaur comics so much, when your criticizing xkcd's "art?" I mean, dc is just the same every fucking day."

    But DC is actually funny. XKCD is often unfunny, often because Randall's poor art interferes with the delivery of the joke. Art is no obstacle for DC, but it is for XKCD, hence the criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Man, I absolutely loved XKCD #384. I hope that the next comic is just like it, but with a tautology instead of a punchline.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I hate xkcd as much as everyone else, but some of these criticisms are weak. Firstly there's nothing sexist about this comic. It merely shows Inspector Gadget to have crude, unrefined taste. Secondly, the fact that 'two lesbians doing it' doesn't fit into the usual gadget template isn't what makes this comic not work.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 718

    The joke

    Where is it

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous who talked about kosher laws: could they be even more hilarious than the name thing? I know about the "no pork" and "no work on saturday", and that the latter gets interpreted in many different ways. For example, in one fancy jewish neighborhood in one undisclosed city, on saturdays they hire people to stand in elevators (in apartment buildings!) and press buttons for those more orthodox jews who consider button-pressing to be work.

    Anonymous 7:29, Ryan North's feat is that he manages to come up with funny and thoughtful dialogue that *fits those pictures* almost every time. I mean really fits the facial expressions. That's nothing short of amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Btw, I actually liked 718.

    ReplyDelete
  104. It's a sort of an interesting idea, but this really should've been posted to his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  105. For a second I thought Randall was copying Ryan and doing some KLASSIK KOMIX but oh wait, the equation's different.
    Oh and he forgot the joke this time.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Suppose the average habitable lifespan of a planet is one billion years--conservative, since the earth has been fecund for four times that. Let's also suppose that the average length of an intelligent civilization is one hundred thousand years. That's fairly generous. You could then have ten thousand civilizations on the same planet, none of whom ever existed concurrently.

    One resolution of the Fermi paradox. There HAVE BEEN millions of alien cultures, that never existed simultaneously.

    It's also why we wouldn't necessarily detect them. Sure, if a species ten thousand light years away from us broadcast continuously for ten thousand years, we would expect to pick up on it. But if there was a relatively brief blurt of communication--say they broadcast continuously for ten thousand years, but did so three hundred million years ago--we wouldn't notice. We've been listening for alien cultures for an extremely short period of time, in evolutionary terms and even moreso in cosmological terms.

    ReplyDelete
  107. XKCD 718 was funnier the first time, when it was called 384 and had a punchline. Also, there's a Goddamned typo (pracitce) in the alt text, which is unacceptable for a supposedly intellectual webcomic.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Nope. God's name in Hebrew without vowels is YHWH. When vowels were added, rather than take God's name in vain, the vowels of Adonai (lord) were placed between the letters. Represented in English by LORD instead of just Lord."

    yes, because it's impossible for someone to have multiple names

    ReplyDelete
  109. "There HAVE BEEN millions of alien cultures, that never existed simultaneously."

    This thought, to me, feels lonelier than the thought that we are alone.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Although 718 isn't funny in it self (you could make up as many such formulas as you like), there might be the possibility that this comic is a parody of statistics (when you consider the alt-text): making up a formula that leads to the same results as you experience when doing research, but that basically is worthless.

    To comply with the culture on this blog:

    Maybe this strip is aparody of xkcd itself: You can make up as many strips like this as you want, that are unfunny, give no insight, and are basically pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Quick nitpick - conservative estimates would UNDERestimate the world population to 6.5 billion or so.

    Also, he gives people a 90% chance to make details not fitting the narrative work, and a 0% chance to actually realize that there is a problem with the story and their friend is wrong.

    Can't argue too much more, since there certainly are a lot of people out there who think aliens are real and know of sightings.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Carl why must you be spreading communist-nazi lies to the youth of America? Why do you hate freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Oh hey sweet, I went to post how today's comic Flake is "junk math" and found out... I've been banned! I did not even see that post saying they would capriciously ban people on a admin fiat about it. I don't know why, but it made me really really angry. I shot off a quick e-mail pointing out that I only read the original post of the topic (why would I want to read pages and pages of people circle jerking how good this mod madness thing is?). I was actually mad enough to send the following to Randall's contact address on his "blag". I am sure he doesn't give a shit, but I had to at least let him know that his forum mods (oh should I say "gods") are asshats. BTW - I tried to keep it civil and maybe even sucked up a little bit in order to curry favor and get him not to dismiss my claim because I "made him mad".


    Here it is:
    I am almost certain that this has no weight in your life and that you probably won't care enough to do anything, but as your forums are representative of you, I feel that I must write you about this.

    Currently, the mods on your forum are running some sort of "Mod Madness" where words are replaced by other words. A few of these replacements were mildly offensive to me (mod->god, God->Jehova for example) and in general I think it is just stupid and not very much fun in my personal opinion.

    I did not get very angry though and simply posted "This is pretty much dumb". Your admin then BANNED me from the forum for this. Apparently, somewhere buried in the topic, he said he would ban people who did not kowtow to their whims.

    I just cannot believe that I do not have the freedom to protest the worthiness of something on the xkcd forums. I thought xkcd as a concept was supposed to be all about it being okay to be different and have different opinions. I could see a ban if I were trolling people hard, but I just said "this is pretty much dumb". I guess I could justified my opinion more, but it doesn't seem to matter to your power hungry forum leaders who write tripe like:

    "OK, that's three. Complainers, whingers and absurdly indignant killjoy assclowns are now subject to bannination for the duration of Mod Madness without further warning at my discretion. My whim, actually. Especially if the complaint appears in this thread where I am really really likely to see it. I don't care about annoying people with word filters this week. I understand and accept that some of you find it annoying. And I don't care. Shut up and let the mod staff have some fun for a few days."

    There is nothing fun about being banned. He didn't even remove the post I made for goodness sake. He is just enforcing a totalitarian yes-man regime where only those who are willing to pretend like the mods are oh so funny and witty and great because they were given some meaningless web authority are allowed to have fun.

    I would appreciate if you reprimanded your administrators for this behavior and got my account reinstated immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I contacted him about it too. Let's see what he has to say. I don't think he's even aware of it, since he himself doesn't seem like a douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @Person #1 the Second: um, dude, that's not what "furtive" means. It means secretive. It has nothing to do with hoping. Are you maybe thinking of "fervent" as in "fervently hoping?"

    ReplyDelete
  116. I also created a new account "modmaddnessprotest" for the duration of my ban. While not saying anything about mod madness as a game, I did protest the bannings. I wonder how long before they kill that account too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  117. Haha, oh god. The very idea that Randall had anything to do with NASA, the big fucking dungaree cunt. Imagine making mathematics so *vain*. I hope he eats a witch's dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  118. So maybe I'm an idiot, but what is "P" meant to be? He labelled every variable except for that one.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Also note the current title of the rules thread: "xkcd Forum Rules - Post GoatKCD, Get Banned". I can only imagine the discussion that prompted that.

    On that note 716 and 717 make excellent goatkcds (the last line of 716 makes it especially excellent).

    ReplyDelete
  120. In my rage about the forum stuff, I got distracted. Malethoth: I have frequented gamefaqs since 2001. You are right about the rules being crazy strict there, though I don't think it is a necessarily bad thing. In my opinion, for the most part it keeps the community in line and discussion civil, especially compared to some of the spinoffs that exist (luelinks for example)

    That being said, I must wholeheartedly agree that the one good thing about the site is relative consistency. It gets messed up when new mods are first chosen, but for the most part, the site is moderated consistently and there is at least a form of recourse to complain to a higher up mod or admin if there are problems.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Last comic... I don't care. It seems he wanted to make a point about accounts of extraterrestrial contact, but I'm not sure what it is, and why bother making a parody equation to state it.

    CAPTCHA: laderme. Fancy French for "the skin". I think.

    Second CAPTCHA, because I forgot I was posting this comment and got distracted: bullyise. Aw, come on...

    ReplyDelete
  122. The xkcd forum dramarama is exactly the kind of thing a bitchy gossip queen like me thrives on. Keep the updates coming!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Today's Dinosaur comics isn't very worthwhile until you read the title text. Then it surpasses my expectations. We all know Mario 3 is the best video game ever, except it could have been better with more goomba sock!

    ReplyDelete
  124. Dear god. Mod madness. I've never seen anything so dumb defended with such open assholery. I wonder what the mechanism is for choosing mods on those boards. Did Randy pick the initial mods and then it was like, "if you trust the person, you can make him a mod, and he gets the same right"? A couple of years ago the mods sounded like nice, intelligent people.

    I'd like to see a graph comic that showed the retards creeping in. Maybe plotting "friend-distance from Randall" versus "idiocy"?

    ReplyDelete
  125. @marsman57
    "Currently, the mods on your forum are running some sort of "Mod Madness" where words are replaced by other words. A few of these replacements were mildly offensive to me (mod->god, God->Jehova for example) and in general I think it is just stupid and not very much fun in my personal opinion."

    I agree that some of that stuff is pretty offensive. I wonder why it says God->Jehova instead of the more accurate God->"Purportedly Magic Fairytale Character"?

    ReplyDelete
  126. I agree that some of that stuff is pretty offensive. I wonder why it says God->Jehova instead of the more accurate God->"Purportedly Magic Fairytale Character"?

    The mods probably don't want to cause too much of a stir; some people still believe that God exists. They're right, too.

    ReplyDelete
  127. lol@butthurt qwantzsux

    ReplyDelete
  128. I think God->"Santa Claus" would be more appropriate; some people still believe that Santa exists. They're right, too. My parents told me so.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Spoken like a world-weary eight-year old.

    ReplyDelete
  130. @comic

    at least he didnt do a Go Go Inspector G-spot joke

    @anonee mice

    Santachrist, your new god

    ReplyDelete
  131. Santachrist, Santachrist, we all love Santachrist, he is Santa and Jesus, Goddamn it's Santachrist

    ReplyDelete
  132. One thing I used to do was say "go go gadget" before doing something incredibly mundane. As if it were an actual achievement. "Go go gadget pen," and then take a pen out of my pocket and start writing, for instance.

    I'm sure there's a joke in there about an unemployed Inspector Gadget, who gets laid off the force but continues to say "Go Go Gadget" as he goes about his daily life.

    "Go Go Gadget Knife and Fork!"
    ... he rummages in a drawer for a few seconds.
    "Actually, I think I sold my cutlery for beer money. ... Damn."

    ReplyDelete