In general, but especially today. Do you hear that whooshing sound? It’s the sound of silence as I NOT LAUGH at this dumb inanity.
Before anyone flames me about acting like the P.C. police, let me add that Mallard Fillmore’s artist has as much a right to publicly express his opinion as I do to publicly express my opinion about his strip.
Mind you, I wouldn’t even bother to comment on this if the strip demonstrated any even remote wit, insight or genuine humor. I laugh at “South Park”, and even P.J. O’Rourke, but not “Mallard Fillmore.” It’s just screechy.
I do agree. Tinsdale’s daily variations on the “Liberals are stupid” theme grew tired after about a dozen strips (as did his contstant attacking the straw man*). Note that it is the only strip that has no real characters in it (i.e., those who have some sort of personality). Mallard is just snide and smug, and the rest have no personality at all.
Compare it to something like Doonesbury, where all the characters have distinct personalities. Or “Pibgorn.” Or even “Family Circus.”
I have no objection to twitting liberals (e.g., Rush Limbaugh’s running a vacuum cleaner when talking about abortion is pretty funny), but let’s actually include a joke once in awhile.
*Attacking not what liberals say, but what he pretends liberals say.
Bruce Tinsley often makes his poor little duck do the same gag for four days in a row, but here he stretches one lame joke over three days. It wasn’t worth the wait.
The main problem with Mallard Fillmore is that it was created to be a right-wing comic strip first, and funny second. Making humor secondary in your comic strip leads inevidably to a bad comic strip. Even worse, it’s pretty hard to make a good political point in three frames with a talking duck, so it doesn’t do that great with its primary goal either.
Doonesbury, which I enjoy, sometimes has the same problem when Tredeau goes out of his way to make a political point (this got somewhat obnoxious during the last election). Happily Doonesbury remains primarily about being funny, and the lives of its characters, and reflecting the political bent of its author is a tertiary concern.
I am so out of the loop. I competely missed the Liberal Conspiricy/Gay Agenda conference where it was announced that homophobia was not about civil rights and basic human respect but about not want to see guys have sex. I guess that was the meeting where they told us we were supposed to be offended by “Merry Christmas”. Thank god for Mallard Filmore for catching me up.
It doesn’t help any that Mallard looks just exactly like Daffy Duck in clothes. Has Tinsley never even heard of originality? (I suppose WB is simply too sluggish to sue his ass.)
Heh, I thought the Doonesbury comics from the Vietnam era were pretty funny, like the football player joining the army (and still wearing the same football helmet while in combat). Most of the more recent ones I’ve read have tended not to be terribly encumbered with funnyness.
In any case, most of these comics are still funnier than the stuff by Mike Lukovich. While the linked comic is actually amusing (I picked the first one I could find), most of Lukovich’s stuff tends to be unimaginative beating-the-dead-horse Bush bashing (not to be confused with imaginitive Bush bashing, which I have seen from time to time).
For some reason, the campus newspaper at Texas A&M prints one of this guy’s comics in every issue, and it gets old pretty fast. That said, 90% of the student body just reads our campus newspaper for the student-produced comics, the New York Times crossword puzzle, and the comedy gold that is the Mail Call section.
Winger is alright. It’s got some good humor, decent characterization, and the liberal foil is exagerated to the point of comedy, but not to the point of being a complete strawman. It’s not quite to my tastes, so I don’t read it daily, but it doesn’t make me roll my eyes with the regularity of some of its conservative comic compatriots.
On the other hand, Mallard was hilarious last week, when he was convincing Chet that he’s talking on the Emperor’s new Cell Phone.
Political strips tend to be less funny when they get rabid about politics. Even Doonesbury has fallen prey to that since GWB became president (by contrast, it was great during the Reagan years).
That’s not a comic – that’s an editorial cartoon. They aren’t supposed to be funny (though they often use humor these days); their purpose is to make a political point. Complaining about Lukovich is like complaining that Thomas Nast wasn’t funny.
So . . . If you were a contemporary of Nast, why would it be inappropriate to complain that one of his cartoons, apparently intended to be funny (not all were), was not funny?
No. Because in Nast’s time, the cartoons weren’t supposed to be funny. They were vicious attacks on people that Nast had political differences with.
The same with the greatest of 20th century political cartoonists: Herblock. He had a point and made it. If it was funny, OK, but that was only a side effect.
Complaining that a political cartoon isn’t funny is like complaining you don’t find Steve Canyon funny. There’s no reason to expect that it should be. (I’m not counting politically oriented comic strips like Pogo or Doonesbury or Mallard Fillmore – they are expected to be funny, which brings up another flaw in Tinsdale’s strip: it’s always political. There are no strips that just show the characters, without any political point being made. A good politically oriented comic strip gets away from politics from time to time, and even for long stretches.)
So . . . If you were a contemporary of Nast, why would it be inappropriate to complain that one of his cartoons, apparently intended to be funny (not all were), was not funny?