does dilbert suck?

Is it me, or does Dilbert just sorta suck nowadays? I mean, it’s the same 7-something characters over and over again(now that I think about it, Phil/Bob/Dawn/Rex haven’t shown up in a while), almost every Sunday strip is them at the meeting table and the manager introducing something new that’s stupid…

On another note, I’ve noticed Doonesbury, despite having been up 3 or 4 times longer than Dilbert, is still funny. Why is this? The many characters? The up-to-date jokes? The series of comic strips? WHAT IS IT DARNEET

-Th’ JawaTrader

Dilbert has definitely been flagging lately, although I certainly wouldn’t put it in the “suck” category yet. Scott Adams seems to have forgotten that office absurdity alone wasn’t what made the strip funny…parodying office absurdity, through use of talking megalomaniacal dogs, dinosaurs, Elbonians and other wacky matters made it funny.

Doonesbury, on the other hand, is always fresh because the political scene is always changing…an office atmosphere may breed some new jokes on occasion, but it’s a relatively static setting. And, there’s a wide variety of characters to play different circumstances off of.

Chaim Mattis Keller

“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

Doonsbury is funny? When did that happen?

Personally, I think the cartoon was the deathwatch beetle on the door (on the WB network no less, talk about insult to injury, what’d it replace “Home boys in Outer Space”?). Although the Office Depot commercials were the first death rattle.


You’re right, Jawa. It’s stale.

Doonebury is to funny as chewing tinfoil is to an orgasm.

Why isn’t this under Mundane Pointless etc.?

Obviously, opinions vary as to whether ANYTHING is funny. To those who never liked Dilbert or Doonesburry, the point is moot, of course.

Personally, I’ve always liked Dilbert, and I think Scott Adams’ work is just as funny as ever. I’m inclined to think that Dilbert has been around so long, however, that many of his formerly rabid fans are getting a bit bored with him. To some extent, that’s inevitable. Even the funniest sitcom eventually loses its audience. Even if it’s still funny, people eventually tire of almost everything.

As for Doonesburry… well, this MAY be just my right-wing bias showing, but I don’t think Trudeau has been funny in a loooong time. Oh, even to a right-winger like me, Doonesburry was hilarious, and a VERY innovative strip back in the 70s. I’d never seen anything like it before, and it’s been highly influential.

But let’s face facts: Trudeau is OLD (it happens to all of us), and he’s waaay out of touch with current pop culture. Thus, when he TRIES to make pop culture references, he only looks more pathetic. Hey, if I were in his shoes, I’d be in trouble now, too! I’m 38, and finding that I have no clue what’s happening on college campuses, or what kids are watching/reading/listening to. That’s fine in my walk of life, but it’s fatal for a would-be hipster like Trudeau.

Another Doonesburry problem: Trudeau was ALWAYS a lousy artist, but his ways of hiding it used to be clever. That hasn’t been true in ages. It’s only too clear that Trudeau depicted George Bush as an invisible man (and Quayle as a feather and Clinton as a waffle and George W as a cowboy hat) because he CAN’T DRAW TO SAVE HIS LIFE!!!

Trudeau knew he was losing touch almost 20 years ago, which is why he took a long hiatus. He came back no more inspired or talented than before. Doonesburry is a waste of space- it’s even less funny than PEanuts (ANOTHER once-brilliant, once innovative strip by a cartoonist who’s had nothing new or interesting to say for 20 years).

This must be MPSIMS since Iäm in here.

I liked the Dilbert a few weeks ago where he had to fix the boss’s project by dividing with an imaginary number and putting the project timeline on a Möbius strip.

You have to work in a large company to get this stuff.

Wally and Alice always work for me.


¡sunbear is the pointy-haired boss!

Well, I only regularly read the SF Chronicle, which doesn’t have Dilbert. From what I see of Dilbert, I gather it’s not as regularly funny these days but still passes.

Doonesbury, on the other hand, seems to kind of get lost in its own trips. Once in a while it’s OK, but Trudeau sweats more on trying to sound super-in than in getting his pen solidly onto a substantial subject.


Why isn’t this under Great Debates?

I wish I was anybody’s boss…not!
I’m the technical type.just the facts, minimal bullshit.

I think Dulbert started sucking right after Scott Adams was laid off. He left the cubicle word for the lecture world. He has no real source of material. I really thought that he would be rejects much sooner. It would have been better if Dilbert also quit and maybe became a consultant or something. At least there, Mr. Adams would have an actual occupation to draw inspiration from. (Yuck, I hate that sentence)

Hey did you see that. I spelled Dilbert as Dulbert. A pure fat-finger error. Wow, it is true that “Even a blind chick occasionally gets a kernel of corn.”

*Inky: Personally, I think the cartoon was the deathwatch beetle on the door (on the WB network no less, talk about insult to injury, what’d it replace “Home boys in Outer Space”?). Although the Office Depot commercials were the first death rattle. *

Actually, “Dilbert” is on UPN.

As a previous poster said, I think Dilbert is currently running through a dry spell. Once you become sucessful you tend to lose the insights that made you funny.

Cathy is a great example of this. The first few years the strips were outrageous. Now they are so boring. Also Peanuts. Schulz should’ve quit when his kids grew up. He obviously used them for his ideas.

Calvin & Hobbes seemed to be the most conistently funny strip I ever read. Far Side too, had only a few clinkers. Perhaps this is why they both quit. They knew they couldn’t keep up the quality of the strip (or panel)

I think the problem with “Peanuts” is less that Schulz’ kids are adults than that Schulz is prosperous and happy!

In all seriousness, what made the early Charlie Brown strips new and different was that they showed how cruel kids can be, and how lonely childhood can be for a kid who doesn’t quite fit in. To a huge degree, this strip was a reflection on CHarles Schulz’ own childhood.

Over time, of course, he became successful, popular, prosperous and happy. His lack of misery helped make the strip tame and dull (not that he wants it any other way, I’m sure!).

Somebody PLEASE bring back Calvin and Hobbes!