The Chicago Tribune recently added this comic strip to its comics page. I fail to detect a joke in any of the strips. In addition, as Comic Book Guy on *The Simpsons *would say, the penciling is sub-Ziggy. How does this travesty of a comic strip become nationally syndicated? It’s like an even crappier version of “Cathy.”
The good news: “Reply All” is a contender in what the Tribune calls the Comics Page Smackdown. It runs side-by-side with another comic strip for a few months. Then, when the period of a few months is over, there’s an online vote. The strip that receives fewer votes gets eliminated and replaced by something else. The opponent is “Dogs of C Kennel.” While it’s not the best strip ever, it is pretty enjoyable, and it is about dogs. It also mentioned my favorite singer Ke$ha in the September 19, 2011 strip.
“Dogs of C Kennel” has already easily defeated “Barney & Clyde,” which I thought was stupid, and then it crushed “Big Nate,” a pretty good strip, by a 3-to-1 margin. I have a feeling that “Dogs of C Kennel” will win with at least 90% of the vote against “Reply All.” I don’t foresee anybody liking “Reply All” enough that they’d actually vote for it. Even better: once “Dogs of C Kennel” wins this round, it will become a permanent part of the comics page! A comic strip only has to win the smackdown thrice before it stays for good.
Reply All is almost in a tie with Family Circus as the worst newspaper strip I’ve ever had the displeasure to read. Honestly the other one isn’t much better, certainly not funny, but at least my eyes weren’t bleeding after looking at it. What the hell happened to newspaper comics anyway? I don’t think I’ve so much as chuckled at the funny pages for a long time now.
Yes, now Reply All makes much more sense.
It still isn’t funny, but at least I know it isn’t a deliberate parody.
The one strip I read of Dogs of C Kennel was somewhat amusing.
And the quality of newspaper comics has declined.
I find quite a few really well done comics online now.
But, I’m sure y’all already know many yourselves.
99% of all comics fail in any way to be funny
Like everything else about newspapers, the internet. Anyone who wants to break into cartooning today does it online, where they get complete creative control and retain sole ownership of their creations.
The first one gave me flashbacks to some of the more ‘PC’ offices I’ve worked in. It seems to be aiming for “Dilbert” or “The Office”. In fact I had the same shuddering horror the first time I watched “The Office”, which I grew to love (UK Version).
Reply All is harder to like, but I do recognise those people and I’m sure I’ve heard those words coming out of Very Serious Managers. Funny in that I don’t work at those place anymore and that makes me smile.
Not all that good. It’s in the vein of the Onion – say something silly in a deadpan voice – but doesn’t bother to say anything silly. Plus the characters – the key to a great comic strip – are thinner than the paper they’re printed on.
Good lord, that art is painful to look at, and I say that as a fan of XKCD.
Too bad about Dogs of C Kennel besting Big Nate. Big Nate is a much better comic. Reply All is drawn to poorly for me to bother reading it.
We’re about to the point where simple Schadenfreude passes for priceless wit. So you may be onto something.
I actually feel bad for the woman who writes it, as well as her friends and family.
Wow … that ls a steaming pile of awfulness.
Neither of the comics in the OP deserve to appear anywhere beyond a school paper at best. Siskel was prescient at leaving the Trib when he did.
XKCD is genius level art. The amount of expression and character he can portray in simple stick figures with no faces is an incredible level of artistic talent.
That comic is aggressively ugly. I can’t believe some editor said “Yeah, let’s go with this one”.
Is she drawing that with WinPaint from Windows 3.2?
I hope ability to be a comic strip author and ability to do Homeland Security are inversely proportional.
There’s a world of difference between a cartoonist who deliberately adopts a very simple drawing style and one who simply cannot draw. Editors seem to have lost the confidence and judgement to distinguish between these two categories.