Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Comic 879: OMG I JIZZED

[ugh. here's your fucking guest post -Ed.]

Hello, this is Ravenzomg of Ravenzomg fame!

I was going to dress up this post, make it all pretty and formal, but I find that I'm just not up for it -- so we'll make this quick.

Title: Lamp. Tooltip: 'That was definitely not in my top three wishes.' 'Who said anything about YOUR wishes?'

So Randall shot this out, and while it's not the prettiest it still goes down alright. I could even be convinced to like it, if I were into this sort of thing.

I'm not going to spew warm lies everywhere, because I like it classy, candles burning and dim lights and crap. This? This was quick and dirty, but at the very least it gets down to business without hesitation. It doesn't leave a sour taste in my mouth, just something... cheap, like those salted snacks you buy at convenience stores for twice what they're worth. They're all show, and they're done before you even realize you'd opened up the bag. But that's how life is, isn't it?

Four panels:
(1) Enter scene, a man and the mystery!
(2) As we all do, he rubs the mystery hoping for a pleasant ending
(3) In a moment of surprising ecstasy, the mystery produces something foul
(4) The man is filled with doubt, anguish, or disgust.

Simple formula, familiar concept of the man-and-lamp, with a gross subversion. Did I expect that? No. I did not expect Randall's finish so yes, my expectations? Subverted.

Randall got lucky tonight, in that his conscience forbade him from using words. There's the onomatopoeic "Splort", but his splort can be forgiven him. Just picture this comic with something like "Oh look, a lamp!" or a second character that says, "If you rub it, maybe a genie will come out!" or in the last panel an "ew!" or something. Randall did NOT do this -- he SHOWED and did not TELL. So give him points, gentleman and lady! Randall used his medium, communicated everything correctly, and did not include Post-Punchline Dialogue!

Before you let off a load of complaints, I will preemptively unclothe the matter at hand: panel four. Now, Randall uses these Void-Creatures for his Creations, and they are faceless -- this is a rule. So the "reaction" lands in our eyes and we're left blinking in minor confusion. We know what just happened, but we're still left wanting... is it anguish here? Disgust? Confusion? Who knows? We never will. We'll always be left wanting, because that is just the medium we've chosen to observe here.

I'd also like to point out the spectacular imagery of the lamp: Panels 1 through 3 it rises logarithmically into climax, until the 4th panel where it is suddenly left flaccid and dangling, spent: The joke has been forced out of the comic.

Oh, and the tooltip: not awful. It seems dangerously close to explaining a joke that didn't need explaining, but it adds the more entertaining idea that not only does the lamp extrude fluid, but that it WANTS to do so. Because, you know, otherwise wanting would have nothing to do with this.
So, final mark of 8/10: Creative, lacking finesse.

Also notable: I think this has created the greatest potential for goatkcd ever. Seriously, Randall can never one-up himself in that regard. Ever.

Oh, and Rob wanted me to include a Megan joke so:




Inb4 That's what she said.

Squeeze hard, hold that pose
You know I like it -- do it!
Sweetheart, I'm the boss
And when you get close to it
I'm gonna make tonight a show (oh, oh)
I'll make your love grenade explode (nanana!)

-Ravenzomg.

102 comments:

  1. "Ravenzomg! said...

    But the voters didn't vote for a Gamer2k4/Ravenzomg coalition, they voted for a Rob minority! This is totally undemocratic.

    [too obscure for the world-wide audience?]"

    So you think I'm just part of the "world-wide audience" eh?

    But Ravenz! if Rob has only been voted in by Minority... that means LESS than 49% of the voters wanted him in! More than half do not want him in! How could he possibly claim with a straight face for it to be "undemocratic" for your coalition to try to supplant him, when more than half of the readership does not want him there in the first place? Sounds like he shouldn't have any right to complain to me!

    ReplyDelete
  2. fuck. robdall finally decides to show, not tell, and he shows lamp jizz. i bet he is furiously refreshing this page with his pants around his ankles as i type this; don't hit the screen robdall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ugh, worse than the lactation comic. Fortunately several people in the forums seem to agree:

    "...I'm going to go ahead and pretend this comic never happened..."
    "xkcd reaches a new low of crassness & mediocrity. :("
    "Most of the comics that aren't trying to be really nerdy or referencing something semi-obscure have been rather C&H like for awhile now."

    Yet the reaction here (extrapolating from 1 review and two comments) is almost positive! What gives?

    Has xkcd reached the wrap-around point on the quality scale? Am I a lowly forumite who doesn't appreciate this kind of humour?

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The content is questionable, but the technique is there where it has been missing in most XKCDs for nearly forever. That's why the review is on the positive end of the axis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That comic was... awful. "Rubbing a genie lamp is like masturbating the lamp so it might spurt some liquid after a while LOL!" Seriously? That's it? Did he just browse through Urban Dictionary until he found "rub a lamp", or was he merely recalling one of the few jokes made by foolish, mortal non-geeks in his early childhood which weren't at his expense?

    Also, "alarm older nun" is an anagram of "Randall Munroe", which this comic would. Not because it's sexual but because it's so awful and Randall's continued popularity will make the nun doubt the existence of a supreme benevolent being.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Jon Levi

    When I first saw C&H, I thought Calvin & Hobbes, which naturally would be a great compliment. I then realized the poster meant Cyanide & Happiness. :(

    I kinda thought today's was funny, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This doesn't really have anything to do with today's comic but, has there ever been a gay person in XKCD? Off the top of my head I can't even think of any mention of homosexuality in any of the comics, except for that one sleep deprivation comic that said "does being a mermaid for five seconds make you gay?" or something.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I imagine Randull would regard homosexuality as male chauvinism, and is envious of effeminate male hairdressers because he assumes they get to sweep up the hair and sniff it. At least there's a job he'll enjoy when people find out the Emperor has no clothes (except the ones he stole from Megan's laundry basket).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Randall's #1 haterMarch 30, 2011 at 5:54 AM

    Can someone please tell me where this bowlcut-sporting motherfucker lives (Munroe) so I can punch him in his balls?

    Actually, based on how sexually frustrated and deviant he is, maybe the sick little fucker would enjoy that. Better to stab him in the neck with a cocktail fork.

    Dude, you fucking bore women to death. Your haircut looks like cat vomit. You're socially retarded and sexually frustrated. Just go get a big bottle of sleeping pills & go to town, will ya, bitch?

    ReplyDelete
  10. And here I was, thinking this was one of the worst xkcd ever. -1000/10

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Randall's #1 hater -- you've got issues, man, real issues...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @all the haters: If you ignore the content, this is a great XKCD.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Snorg Tees girl made me jizz.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Father Robdall, I have sinned. I chuckled at the comic, and outright laughed at a forumite's revised version (he simply changed the alt text to read "for best results, use before april 1st 1599").

    What is wrong with meeee

    ReplyDelete
  15. "@all the haters: If you ignore the content, this is a great XKCD."

    The best of all possible XKCD endorsements.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I like the wording throughout your post, Raven.

    Here's hoping Friday's is bad but not to the point of grossing me out. Seeing something like this just kills my desire to review it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ok let's be honest i'm glad Raven took the bullet on this one

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Jon Levi It's almost like Randy made this comic less for cuttlefish and more for us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Ann Apolis: blank?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @4:22
    Homosexuality was mentioned in
    http://xkcd.com/83/

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Gamer_2k4: Ty ty -- it was originally an experiment to see how many innuendous phrases I could squeeze out, until I decided to just relax and let the review come naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...

    Well, slow down before chafing sets in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is actually pretty good. Crude, yes, but just in a vulgar way and not in a creepy stalker way (ie: breastmilk).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Today, Abstruse Goose is...

    ...awflet's be honest I could probably write a script to do these. Delivers the latest strip to me, I press a button to confirm its direness, it does the post and I get to go back to sleep.

    In less automated news, the new Filibuster is not awful per se but rather overextends the 'broken record' thing; Questionable Content has not gotten any better; and Something Happens, though normally quite good, has gone on one of its semi-regular intermissions, in this case uninteresting nonsense verse.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It wouldn't let me post it as Abstruse Goose Watch :(

    ReplyDelete
  26. Today, Abtruse Goose Watch is...

    ...failing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dude come on you could have linked to the correct comment. You's just lazy.

    CAPTCHA: plessu. What you say when someone with a phonation disorder sneezes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey y'all, I've been reading this blog for a while but have never commented. Yet I just got a blog, so here we go...
    Anyway, who thinks Randy was staring at his shrine for Megan when "drawing" this "comic"?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Today, Abtruse Goose Watch Watch is...

    ...lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think I've seen this joke somewhere before ...

    Execution ... perfect, but executing a perfect dick joke should be beyond someone with popularity like that.

    I mean Zach Weiner perfected the dick joke at birth, AMIRITE??!

    Captcha: nologic to the captchas you get

    ReplyDelete
  31. Also,

    Reboot does a Redux countdown: 17

    ReplyDelete
  32. Charles Augustus FortescueMarch 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM

    Re homosexuality: we know that Randall is super right-on about all that stuff because of his gender question in the colour survey:

    http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/

    ReplyDelete
  33. Meh. This one just reminded me of 455 and 777. Which were every bit as unfunny as this one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 455?

    That's quite the low blow.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I fixed 879. Pretty much the same concept as last time.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steventhehawk/5577281981/

    ReplyDelete
  36. That lamp either came really fast, or Randall spent an unhealthy amount of time rubbing it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It's funny. Randull creats a ha;f decent comic (for the reasons Raven said), but it's for this meh, didn't really need that joke.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Booty, the lamp read a speed run guide.

    ReplyDelete
  39. J'ai un tatouage à plusieurs dimensions. Un tatouage qui se déplie. Quand il roupille c'est une grenade, quand il se réveille c'est une torpille. Est-ce que ça t'intéresserait de le voir?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Voulez vous coucher avec moi, Megan?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Französisch ist eine Sprache für Homosexuelle.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Not tonight lamp, I have a Headache.

    captcha: skishear. Is that like a snowplow but for removing trees?

    ReplyDelete
  43. XKCD in 3d: Worst gimmick ever. Not even a good April Fool's joke.

    ReplyDelete
  44. http://www.webcitation.org/5xc4WBMeo

    Here's the WebCite for 880. Just in case this 3D crap doesn't stick.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The new xkcd is pretty good.

    APRIL FOOLS

    captcha: unspit.


    ...ew.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So apparently the entire site is in 3D. Didn't even notice first time around. The WebCite above includes the archives, so they're all saved.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Every single xkcd comic now looks like shit.

    ...More like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  48. But at least it's 3D shit!

    ReplyDelete
  49. I can predict the review of #880:

    "Stick figures are floating in the air! Gaah! This is the worst shit ever! Randall, will you ever learn? Something something Megan, and Randall is a pathetic loser!"

    ReplyDelete
  50. I kinda like the new xkcd, but there is a problem of timing; 3D was hot last year, when Avatar came out, and then Alice in Wonderland and shit. And the joke's been done before.

    PS: l'allemand est une langue de pédé.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ok, so apparently, I don't know how to put a link in a message, so I'll try again:

    The joke's been done before

    ReplyDelete
  52. Good news: The 3d conversion broke 631!
    Bad news: Megan's vagina is still there. After it is fixed, maybe you'll be able to tilt the speech bubble out from in front of it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Also, he has no job other than this comic, but still has to ask for help 3d-ifying it. He also didn't think through how comics where the foreground obscures the background will work, or things like his model railroad where it can't be sliced up into layers.

    ReplyDelete
  54. http://xkcd.com/736/

    The automated script has problems with floating heads!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Note that this is the perfect time to submit edited comics...

    ReplyDelete
  56. god that 3d effect is hideous.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Rochambeau, CLEARLY you haven't seen a Nintendo 3DS yet :)

    ReplyDelete
  58. ...wtf.

    Well, the xkcdsucks comment box is being, as usual, a pain in the ass. Now I can only comment in Firefox, and not throught OpenID authentication. WHAT THE FUCK BLOGGER!

    Okay, to the comic. The 3D effect looks hideous, but crafty. At least it fits the comic. But...

    ...none of the other comics do. That "Plato's Cave" comic feature an odd "cleft" when the desk moves independently from the blonde woman. And, overall, there's little to no movement, so the difference is insignificant.

    ...and now I just thought that 631 is 3D, too now... urrrk.

    ReplyDelete
  59. 631 is more confusing than ever. It's an improvement, really.

    ReplyDelete
  60. After I realized the script was automated it became more interesting. Then I realized that he didn't write it because he can't actually code. Why the fuck is this guy popular for stick figure jokes again?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Reboot does a Redux countdown: 16

    Captcha: mulgeein, I should really let the captcha try that one more time.

    ReplyDelete
  62. SOMEbody bought a 3DS...

    ReplyDelete
  63. This is a scathing satire of needless 3D in modern film. I refuse to think of it as anything else, because I can not comprehend existing in a universe where people, including Randall, might legitimately think this is funny or cool.

    ReplyDelete
  64. http://i.imgur.com/2RG7E.png

    "wanna go for a bike ride"

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'll take it a step further.

    http://xkcd.com/178/

    Even though the 3d already fucks this one up, it's almost the same joke.

    ReplyDelete
  66. it's a bit sad that randy nasa programmer munroe can't code his own april fools day joke

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think you're giving him too much credit. He didn't leave that job voluntarily, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @Rochambeau that's a completely different joke. Of course the general idea of "real life in 3D" has been done before. I'm willing to bet every single one of us who has friends in real life have both made the same joke in a social environment. The point is the specific joke being made, which is the rejection of real life in favour of staring at computer screens on the basis of a common complaint about 3D movies (the value of the burrito videon on the other hand lies in its presentation). Even that has no doubt been done before, but isn't so absolutely obvious.

    It's a moderately good joke by xkcd standards, and a mediocre-but-decent-filler one by real comedic standards.

    ReplyDelete
  69. It's practically the same joke as this as well.

    ReplyDelete
  70. At first I hated this April Fool's joke. It's ugly and broken and it makes my eyes want to puke blood. But then I discovered this, and realized that all the inept and lazy horror was worth it because of this!

    http://oi54.tinypic.com/2e49is7.jpg

    Stare into this comic and bow before Randall's unmatched genius!

    ReplyDelete
  71. "it's a bit sad that randy nasa programmer munroe can't code his own april fools day joke"

    well he wasn't doing anything important, and he's said himself that he wasn't very good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I would have used the word 'Schplort!!!' myself.

    ReplyDelete
  73. IT'S NOT A TOOLTIP IT'S AN ALT-TEXT STOP BEING IGNORANT YOU IGNORAMUS

    ReplyDelete
  74. Read the comic, re-assess: It's the tooltip. The tip. of the tool.
    ...
    ...
    Get it???

    Captcha: Crabio. *Flourishes 10¾" vinewood ( dragon heartstring core) and turns you into a crab*

    ReplyDelete
  75. DID YOU JUST MAKE A HARRY POTTER REFERENCE AS WELL
    OH GOD
    THE PAIN IS UNENDING

    ReplyDelete
  76. How many girls have you guys done? I'm only 26 and have already done three, plus I currently have my sight set on a fourth who seems about ready to relent. Life is good.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 5.51, it doesn't count if they're made of plastic

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yeah Ann, how many girls have YOU done?





    srsly how many?

    ReplyDelete
  79. See, you are all avoiding the question because none of you are anywhere near as manly as I am.

    And @Ann it really isn't very nice to disregard a person just because she has had a bit of cosmetic surgery. Sure, they botched it a bit and ended up having to carve out one of her breasts but that doesn't make her less of a woman. Even if it does, she was at least half a woman and actually let me have a second go before she dumped me so she really should count as one full notch.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I only have sex with men because women can not withstand my mighty thrusts.

    ReplyDelete
  81. ...And by men, you mean yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  82. # of women guy claims to have sex with = 1 / # of women he's had sex with

    ReplyDelete
  83. @11:32, I've had sex with one girl... the system works!

    So would claiming to have sex with 2 girls really mean sex with a midget?

    ReplyDelete
  84. mole I don't get it at all

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well, apparently now even in Firefox I can't comment in this blog. I don't know what Blogger is doing, but I give up. >_<

    ReplyDelete
  86. ...what?

    I posted a comment early today and it didn't appear. Now it does! GAH!

    @11:32
    Well, I'm a virgin, what does this mean? :P

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mole has had sex with every woman that has existed or will ever exist or could possibly have existed.

    Including his mother.

    And my mother.

    Bastard!

    Captcha: Mulph. Mother u'd like to pet heavily.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Just because he had sex with an infinity of women doesn't mean he had sex with his mum. If there really was a set containing an infinity of women, he could always take his mom out, it would still be a set with an infinite number of women.

    But he most certainly had sex with your mum!!!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Mole's mum IS the set containing an infinity of women, amirite??




    Sorry Mole. I didn't mean it...

    ReplyDelete
  90. Correction: mole has slept with 1/0 women. Anything divided by zero is simultaneously positive and negative infinity, or ±infinity if you will.

    That means mole has also slept with an INFINITELY NEGATIVE number of women at the same time. How can you sleep with a negative number of women? Do they cancel out the positive ones?? Where can I go to meet one of these negative women???

    ReplyDelete
  91. Kitten, I was going to answer that with a slanderous comment about your mom, but since your mom is probably a cat... I'll just leave it like that.

    Jon, your mom is a negative woman. :P

    ReplyDelete
  92. Wouldn't a "negative woman" be a positive man? And in that case is 11:32's equation correlative to one's sexual orientation?

    ReplyDelete
  93. don't have sex with a positive man, unless you're using protection

    also: how CISNORMATIVE of you 7.29

    ReplyDelete
  94. Infinitely negative women just means that Mole sleeps with a lot of dudes

    ReplyDelete